June 5, 2020 Candace Owens Video Regarding George Floyd

JUNE 5, 2020

Candace Owens gives an impassioned detail of why she is making public her own finding regarding the George Floyd hideous murder. Because there are details that do not fit the "George Floyd hero" narrative, this one woman refuses to be silent and follow the crowd that has systematically followed some less than upstanding "heroes and heroines" within the black community.

This is an important video for you to watch. It is a video that needs to be shared. It is a part of a story that is not being told in full disclosure. It neither fits the narrative nor the agenda of the race baiting coalition.

Candace Owens deserves to be heard. She represents a huge component of the Black community, and her voice must not be silenced.


Candace Owens: "I DO NOT support Georgie Floyd!" & Here's Why
https://youtu.be/JtPfoEvNJ74

This is exactly the scenario envisioned by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68, and the Electoral College served as a check on California's massive foolishness, exactly as it was supposed to do. It was not designed to have electors overrule the voters. It was designed so one state couldn't push around all the other states with a reckless act of idiocy.

http://www.hermancain.com/the-left-is-getting-federalist-68-totally-wrong

The left is getting Federalist 68 totally wrong

The Electoral College is designed to prevent one big, stupid state (ahem . . . California) from sticking the rest of us with a total fraud.

The so-called "Hamilton electors" were a total failure yesterday, as you certainly know by now. They fell 35 short of the 37 Republican electors they needed to persuade to deny Donald Trump the presidency. In fact, more Democrat voters rejected Hillary Clinton than there were Republican electors who refused to vote for Trump.

The whole thing was clearly going nowhere from the beginning, and didn't deserve the attention it got from the media. But the Hamilton electors didn't only fail to stop Trump. They also failed miserably in their understanding of Alexander Hamilton's writing in Federalist 68, which they offered as their rationale for pleading with electors to defeat Trump.

The Hamilton electors argued that the purpose of the Electoral College, as Hamilton discussed in Federalist 68, was to serve as a safeguard against electing a candidate with "talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity." In other words, they claimed, Federalist 68 intended for electors to exercise their wisdom and reject a charlatan candidate who managed to fool the voters.

And of course, these people insisted that Trump was such a candidate.

But they didn't read Federalist 68 carefully enough. Take a look, especially to the part I've put in bold:

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

The scenario Hamilton lays out here does not involve electors rejecting the choice the people made in an election. Rather, it speaks to what happens when a charlatan candidate fools the voters in one state. The purpose of the Electoral College is to give the other states a chance to serve as a check on the one state that was fooled. In other words, one complete fraud manages to fool the people of one large state - racking up a large margin of victory in that state. When the nation was founded, New York or Virginia could easily have been that state. There were only 13 states, and if one large state made a bad decision by an overwhelming margin, there might not have been enough votes in the other states to counteract it.

The purpose of the Electoral College was to give the smaller states more leeway in the event something like that happened. The charlatan fraud might take New York, but if the other states did not concur, he might not win enough electoral votes to take the election, even if he won the popular vote. Contrary to the current left-wing view that this is a bug of the Electoral College system, it's actually a feature. This is exactly how it's supposed to work.

So let's look at what happened in this year's election. As it turns out, we did have one candidate win one very large state by an overwhelming margin - such an overwhelming margin that it resulted in a popular vote pluraity (although not a majority) nationwide. And this candidate also happened to be a charlatan and a fraud - someone very much not wanted in the White House by the rest of the country. This candidate, of course, was Hillary Clinton. If winning a popular vote plurality had been enough to win the presidency, then California would have just succeeded at sticking the rest of the country with Hillary, even though 30 states did not want her, and Trump "won the popular vote" in the other 49 states combined.

This is exactly the scenario envisioned by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68, and the Electoral College served as a check on California's massive foolishness, exactly as it was supposed to do. It was not designed to have electors overrule the voters. It was designed so one state couldn't push around all the other states with a reckless act of idiocy.

Like electing Hillary Clinton. Nice job, Electoral College. Nice job, Alexander Hamilton.

I'm glad I had the opportunity to explain this to you liberals who've been getting Federalist 68 so abysmally wrong these past few days.

Get Dan's three-part series of Christian spiritual thrillers! And follow all of Dan's work by liking his page on Facebook.

Sent from my iPhone

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/08/why-conservatives-lost-part-1-the-big-picture

WHY CONSERVATIVES LOST: PART 1 — THE BIG PICTURE

Note: This is the first of a seven-part series examining why conservatism lost the country so that we can learn the lessons necessary to win the future. Come, let us reason together. 

Here are some of the lies we love to tell one another at conferences, on social media haunts, and at conventions to make ourselves feel better about the state of things:

• This is still a right-of-center country. That’s true to some extent, but the problem is the center has moved decidedly to the left. Today’s Republicans are mostly yesterday’s Democrats. Republican primary voters in Kansas — one of the reddest states in the country — just tossed out Congressman Tim Huelskamp and his 91 percent Liberty Score® here at Conservative Review, because what they want even more from government than their God-given rights are handouts. Republicans are either rallying to or cowering away from the Rainbow Jihad. No current member of GOP congressional leadership in either chamber has a Liberty Score® higher than a D. Furthermore, Speaker Paul Ryan (53%) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (42%), each have Fs.   

• We can rally the “silent majority.” We rightfully mock liberals for not moving on from bygone Watergate references, yet this phrase we toss around to comfort ourselves ironically comes from the same era — originally credited to Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon’s vice president. There is no silent majority in America anymore. There apparently is an angry, populist, nationalist “silent plurality,” which Donald Trump tapped into to win the nomination. But other than love of country and a high regard for national sovereignty, there is little to nothing conservative about that movement. 

• We have a promising bench of emerging, principled conservatives. Anyone still believing this paid no attention to the recent presidential primary or never looked at the Liberty scorecard here at CR. We have the largest Republican majority on Capitol Hill since before the Great Depression; however, of the 301 Republicans currently in office, only 40 of them have A or B Liberty scores. And that’s with a Democrat in the White House. That means only 13 percent of the Republicans elected in 2014 have voted the right way more often than not when it was easy to build a principled resume. Just look at my home state of Iowa, which sent two newcomers to Washington in the last election. But already Senator Joni Ernst (62%) and Congressman David Young (43%) have disappointing Liberty scores. 

The inconvenient truth is we have lost everything. We have an established beachhead exactly nowhere. We are not advancing on any front anywhere. Our best “victories” are stopping the Left from going places that even a decade ago would’ve been unthinkable in the political mainstream (e.g., North Carolina bathroom fight, Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case).

The actual data and election results have been telling us for quite some time — are simply not true. We are ineffective. We move almost no public policy. 

It's time — past time — we on the Right have a serious and adult conversation among ourselves about where the country is headed and our place in that.

The country is in a meltdown on every front. Super majorities of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Yet as of today, President Obama's approval rating is approaching 60 percent. And if he were up for re-election this year, he would be a heavy favorite to win.

Then there's Hillary Clinton, whom a majority of Americans don't like or trust. Yet she's polling better at this point than Obama was four years ago. The Republican nominee spent more time at his convention currying favor with Bernie Sanders’ socialist voters than talking about conservatism or the Constitution. Even the Libertarian Party, which had a real chance to make inroads with conservatives this year, nominated two liberal, former Republican governors as its ticket — and neither candidate has any regard for the Bill of Rights whatsoever. 

However, we keep convincing ourselves that with every cop killing, terrorist attack, and new scandal "this will be the moment that will turn the election" and create a wave. But no wave is forthcoming, no matter how discouraged people become. True, the sham that is the Trump candidacy is a factor here, and it’s increasingly clear people just don't see him as presidential material no matter what happens. That may explain what is going to happen this cycle.

But our problems are far more systemic than Trump. His sham candidacy is a symptom of our problems, not the source of them. 

We've lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. And only twice in almost half a century has a non-incumbent Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote (1968,1980). I was seven when that last happened. The Star Wars trilogy hadn't been completed yet. Nobody had heard of Indiana Jones. Disco was still popular. Most of America didn't even have cable television. That's how long ago it was.

It is time to stop lying to ourselves. To stop convincing ourselves that it doesn't matter how terrible the GOP nominee is, because we can actually win elections on how bad the Democrats are. And all the other sweet nothings we say to each other — the actual data and election results have been telling us for quite some time — are simply not true. We are ineffective. We move almost no public policy. And now even corporate America, a key ally in the Reagan era, no longer funds our causes but is the man-at-arms for the progressive Left.

I just turned 43. I have three children — 15, 11, and 9. By the time 2020 rolls around, one of them will be out of my house and on her own. Given that perspective, I am fully committed to the conservative cause regardless of how discouraging things seem. There's simply too much at stake for our children and grandchildren to turn back now.  

Nonetheless, I don't want to be sitting here 20 years from now, perhaps on the edge of retirement, thinking everything I did for that cause was for naught. A man I greatly admire once told me: "You're fighting the same battles we fought 40 years ago." I know he's trying to encourage me to take the long view, but with all due respect to him, I don't want to spend 40 years fighting the same war he did.

I'd like to win the war.

This is not a happy tale, for sure. But we can't fix what's wrong unless we're willing to be truly honest about where we are. Hence, this series I’m writing over this next seven weeks. If you’d like to win the war as well, I invite you to join me for a long, overdue, and sober assessment of our movement in the hopes of learning the tough, but necessary, lessons. 

You don’t know where you’re going until you know where you’ve been. 

http://zpolitics.com/your-handy-guide-to-georgias-religious-freedom-bills/

YOUR HANDY GUIDE TO GEORGIA’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BILLS

As of Friday, seven religious liberty bills have been introduced in the legislature, meaning that members of the Georgia General Assembly are debating on which religious freedom proposals are best for Georgians. As a result, we now have an overabundance of legislation of the “alphabet soup” variety with acronyms like RFRA and FADA, and names like the Pastor Protection Act and the Georgia Students Religious Liberties Act.

Even the casual observer of Georgia politics may not have the time to wade through this sea of legalese gobbledygook, but fear not, stalwart zpolitics reader – we have read these pieces of legislation for you! (Yes, you may thank us later.)

Below you’ll find a quick overview of all seven religious freedom-related bills in the Georgia General Assembly.

SB 129 – “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA); Sponsor: Sen. Josh McKoon (R-Columbus)

Much notoriety, media coverage, and controversy surrounds SB 129, partially due to its embattled Senate sponsor and his impassioned defense of the bill on social media. Called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), this was the original religious freedom bill from which all others spawned. To understand the others, it’s helpful to understand this one.

Based on a 1993 federal law of the same name, this bill seeks to provide Georgians with the same protections on the state level, which the federal law does not cover. The essence of the law is that it is meant to protect against government overreach, establishing that the government “should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.”

Senator McKoon has insisted that SB 129 would not lead to discrimination of any kind, but opponents claim that it will open the door for “legalized discrimination” against LGBT Georgians.

Cue controversy.

HB 837 – “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA); Sponsor: Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth)

HB 837 is also entitled “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” However, don’t confuse these three pages of fun with SB 129 (the other, more well-known RFRA bill sponsored by Senator McKoon).  The basics are all here, though.

The main difference between Rep. Setzler’s version and Senator McKoon’s is the language. HB 837 says that the federal statute would apply to state and local governments, while SB 129 supposedly leaves more room for interpretation. Nothing much else to see here, moving right along.

HB 757 – “The Pastor Protection Act;” Sponsor: Rep. Kevin Tanner (R-Dawsonville)

Shakespeare once wrote that brevity is the soul of wit, and in just over 2 pages (a paragraph, really), the “Pastor Protection Act” is very brief. With the support of House Speaker David Ralston (R- Blue Ridge), HB 757 would protect a religious institution or organization from participating in religious or matrimonial services that violate their free exercise of religion under the 1^st Amendment of the US Constitution. Easy peasy.

HB 756 – Sponsor: Rep. Kevin Tanner (R-Dawsonville)

Also sponsored by Representative Tanner, sans-snappy title, HB 756 is a short read, but takes full advantage of the page space in both pages of the legislation. In a nutshell, his bill would allow private business owners the ability to deny goods or services for a “matrimonial ceremony” based on a religious belief.

SB 284 – “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA); Sponsor: Sen. Greg Kirk (R- Americus)

SB 284, also known as the “First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia,” seeks “to prohibit discriminatory action against a person who believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such marriage.”

Translation: it would protect individuals from performing actions that violate their religious beliefs. For that reason, FADA is also referred to as the “Kim Davis bill”.

HB 816 – “Georgia Student Religious Liberties Act;” Sponsor: Rep. Billy Mitchell (D- Stone Mountain)

Not only the longest of the aforementioned bills, clocking in at 8 pages, HB 816 is also the combo breaker for being sponsored by a Democrat.

Known as the “Georgia Student Religious Liberties Act,” HB 816 is basically the “let God back into the classroom” bill of 2016. It would protect students from penalty should they exercise religious expression in class, assignments, graduation, and other school activities.

HB 870 – Sponsor: Rep. Brian Strickland (R- McDonough)

While HB 816 aims to protect religious expression in schools, HB 870 would defend those freedoms on the field. The bill was introduced in response to a 2015 controversy in which a track championship winner was disqualified because he wore a headband with a bible verse. Additionally, it also seeks to protect small faith-based schools from being excluded from interschool play by public schools.

So there you have it, the zpolitics handy pocket guide to the plethora of religious liberty legislation currently floating around under the Gold Dome. 2016 will be a very interesting session to watch, especially as all these different religious freedom recipes coalesce and their respective cooks try to get to the table before the others.

Sent from my iPhone

THE SWEARING IN OF THE 114TH CONGRESS

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/quirky-ceremonies-curious-characters-mark-hills-first-day-of-school/?pos=eam&dczone=emailalert

Quirky Ceremonies, Curious Characters Mark Hill’s ‘First Day of School’

By David HawkingsPosted at 5 a.m. Jan. 6

He’s ready for his close-up. Biden’s time to shine is in the Old Senate Chamber. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

If freshman week back in November was the Hill’s equivalent of college orientation, then the formal convening of each Congress is the Capitol’s analogue to the first day of school.

And so it may be useful, for the congressional community as well as the throngs of well-wishers in town just for the festivities, to be reminded of some of the curious ways in which the customs of this day are different from all the others.

Just as every kid has the potential to be an A student until classes begin, and every team gets to harbor hopes of a championship season until the first game is played, each senator and representative has the same theoretical shot at legislative and political success at the start of January in every odd-numbered year. The quantifiable sorting really doesn’t get started until the new Congress is at least a few hours old, once the formalities have locked in place the partisan balance of power.

On Tuesday, the somewhat suspenseful call of the roll in the House that elects John A. Boehner to a third term as speaker, and Mitch McConnell’s initial response to the cue “the majority leader is recognized,” will affirm the reality that Republicans are in charge of the entire Capitol for the first time in eight years. They’ve promised to assert their new policymaking superiority almost immediately.

Just as the rhythms for the first day of a new academic year are unique, the opening ceremonies beginning at noon will feature some people who are out of the congressional spotlight on almost every other occasion, and some procedures that probably won’t be used again until January 2017.

Because the House of Representatives, as a parliamentary matter, essentially ceased to exist at noon on Saturday, when all 435 members of the 113^th Congress left office, the responsibilities of calling the new House to order, establishing that a quorum of members-elect have shown up (a constitutional requirement before business may begin) and conducting the speaker’s election all fall to the Clerk of the House. Since 2011, the person in charge of floor operations has been Karen L. Haas, who has adhered to the staffer’s code of shunning publicity during nearly three decades as a fixture in the ranks of senior GOP leadership aides.

By longstanding custom, the just-elected speaker is the first House member to take office, and the oath is administered by the returning member (from either party) with the most seniority. With the retirement of John D. Dingell, the House will have a new “dean” for the first time in 20 years: 85-year-old John Conyers Jr., another Michigan Democrat, who is beginning his 26th term but has faded into the distant background behind the Democratic power players in recent years despite hanging in as the Judiciary Committee’s ranking member.

In the Senate, the undisputed star of the show will be someone with almost universal name recognition but a purposefully small footprint recently at the Capitol: Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has only been to the Capitol twice since Labor Day, but he’s back as master of ceremonies because the Constitution says he’s also the almost always powerless president of the Senate.

He’ll be in the chair to recognize McConnell as majority leader and conduct the swearing in of 13 new and 21 re-elected senators. But only then will his potential to create another You Tube sensation arrive. Biden will repair to the Old Senate Chamber and stage oath-taking ceremonies with the senators and their families in front of a clutch of TV and still cameras. If past practice holds, he’ll generate a long highlight reel by flirting with the members’ mothers, daughters and granddaughters — while offering such oddball quips as the one directed two years ago at a totally bewildered Darwin Lange, the husband of North Dakota Democrat Heidi Heitkamp: “Spread your legs, you’re gonna be frisked.”

Because two-thirds of the senators are holdovers from one Congress to the next, the Senate views itself as a “continuing body,” meaning that unlike the House it does not formally reconstitute itself every two years. And since the floor leaders, whose jobs are 20^th century inventions, have already been chosen by their caucuses, there is no formal leadership election on opening day.

Instead, the most unusual procedural ritual is how the senators starting new terms line up alphabetically and come down the center aisle in groups of four, each customarily escorted by their predecessor or their state’s other senator. (Ten of the 13 freshmen will be paired in their two-person delegation with someone from the same party.) After taking the oath (identical to the one used for all senior federal officials except the president) they are directed to a registry that’s been used since the Civil War to log the signatures of each senator being sworn in. (They get to keep the pens.)

The vibe in the House is considerably less formal but none the less antiquated. Custom holds that members may bring their non-adult children onto the floor during the day, and the rules about quiet in the visitor galleries are relaxed so that friends from home can hoot their approval when sighting their favorite newly minted member.

The result is a room overstuffed with an increasingly loud and unwieldy collection of partying constituents, glad-handing politicians and their kids, whose wide-eyed excitement in their Sunday best inevitably gives way to a collective and fidgety boredom.

The reason they’re stuck in the chamber until mid-afternoon is that none of the members want to miss either their own swearing-in — or their five seconds of participation in the procedure beforehand. The election of the speaker is the only time every two years when the House votes with a clerk calling the roll alphabetically, after instructing the members-elect to “indicate by surname the nominee of their choosing.”

With nine Republicans voting for someone other than Boehner, the Ohio Republican secured his second term in the House’s top job with just six votes to spare in 2013. That level of discontent isn’t at all likely to be repeated this time (An absolute majority is required, meaning 28 from the GOP would need to spurn Boehner to depose him now.) And so some of the drama may be focused on whether any freshmen miss their moment when attendance is taken.

By coincidence, the first two and last two lawmakers whose names will be called are participating in the ritual for the first time. So a fair warning is due to Republicans Ralph Abraham of Louisiana, Lee Zeldin of New York, Ryan Zinke of Montana and Democrat Alma Adams of North Carolina: On this unique day of your new careers, the eyes of the nation will be watching. After that, first-year obscurity may well be your lot.

The 114th: CQ Roll Call’s Guide to the New Congress

....and more

http://townhall.com/columnists/richgalen/2015/01/05/swearinin-day-n1938824?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Swearin-in Day

At approximately noon on Tuesday January 6, 2015 the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate will bang their gavels calling their respective Chambers to order and, for the 114th time since 1789, a new United States Congress will begin.

Amendment XX, Section 2 to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."

This Amendment fixed a Constitutional anomaly (Article I, Section 4, Clause 2) that held:

"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."

The issue was, the "first Monday in December" was not a month after November elections, but a year and a month after November elections.

Talk about'cher Lame Ducks.

In practice, the Congress had long adopted March 4 as the beginning of Congressional activities as well as the beginning of the date of Presidential inaugurations, thus the lame duck period from election day to swearing-in day was four months.

You can imagine the mischief that the Congress might get into when control of one or both chambers changed hands and the old leadership have four full months to stack the deck before they had to leave the bridge.

The 20th Amendment officially fixes noon on January 20th following an election as the beginning (and ending) of Presidential terms.

The last President to be inaugurated on March 4 was Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.

The House will do some housekeeping, swear in all the Members, and elect a Speaker.

Republicans start the 114th Congress with 246 Members. Not all of them will vote for John Boehner (R-Oh) to be re-elected Speaker, but it is not at all likely that more than 28 will decline to allow Boehner to continue leading the House.

Democrats in the House will largely (but not unanimously) vote for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker but she won't win, so she will smile bravely as she hands a ceremonial gavel to Boehner (who, by this time, will be sobbing like he's been watching a cute cat video).

Over in the Senate about a third of the Members will be sworn in - only those newly- or re- elected. The rest are holdovers who do not have to renew their vows.

At approximately noon on Tuesday January 6, 2015 the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate will bang their gavels calling their respective Chambers to order and, for the 114th time since 1789, a new United States Congress will begin.

Amendment XX, Section 2 to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."

This Amendment fixed a Constitutional anomaly (Article I, Section 4, Clause 2) that held:

"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."

The issue was, the "first Monday in December" was not a month after November elections, but a year and a month after November elections.

Talk about'cher Lame Ducks.

In practice, the Congress had long adopted March 4 as the beginning of Congressional activities as well as the beginning of the date of Presidential inaugurations, thus the lame duck period from election day to swearing-in day was four months.

You can imagine the mischief that the Congress might get into when control of one or both chambers changed hands and the old leadership have four full months to stack the deck before they had to leave the bridge.

The 20th Amendment officially fixes noon on January 20th following an election as the beginning (and ending) of Presidential terms.

The last President to be inaugurated on March 4 was Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.

The House will do some housekeeping, swear in all the Members, and elect a Speaker.

Republicans start the 114th Congress with 246 Members. Not all of them will vote for John Boehner (R-Oh) to be re-elected Speaker, but it is not at all likely that more than 28 will decline to allow Boehner to continue leading the House.

Democrats in the House will largely (but not unanimously) vote for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker but she won't win, so she will smile bravely as she hands a ceremonial gavel to Boehner (who, by this time, will be sobbing like he's been watching a cute cat video).

Over in the Senate about a third of the Members will be sworn in - only those newly- or re- elected. The rest are holdovers who do not have to renew their vows.

They, too, will do housekeeping including adopting rules and resolutions which will include naming Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) as Majority Leader - a post that has no Constitutional significance - and will also elect a President Pro-Tempore, a post that does.

The Vice President of the United States, under the rules of Article I, Section 3: "shall be President of the Senate…" The Veep is already first in line of succession to the crown if the Presidency becomes vacant, but the President Pro-Tempore is third, behind the aforementioned Speaker of the House.

That first Congress (meeting first in New York then in Philadelphia) was pretty active. Among other things it adopted the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution which we now call "The Bill of Rights" but also, according to the House' own history:

"started filling out the U.S. Constitution's skeletal framework by addressing concerns raised during ratification and by creating the federal architecture-a revenue system, the first executive departments, and the judiciary. Congress also assumed state Revolutionary War debts and decided the location of the future capital."

Not bad, right out of the box.

The 114th Congress will have its hands full as well - something we will doubtless be discussing with some regularity over the next two years.

Obamacare, the tax code, immigration, telecommunications, the "Three E's" - environment, energy & education - not to mention appropriations and budget issues among many others.

What we don't know is whether the 114th Congress will be like the 1st: tackling and voting on difficult and far-reaching issues or, as Shakespeare might have said, be two years "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

What we do know is that twice a week, in Mullings, it will be "a tale told by an idiot."

New Direction for the GOP Begins at the Local Precinct Level

http://www.redstate.com/diary/candicelanier/2013/03/06/new-direction-for-the-gop-begins-at-the-local-precinct-level-conservatives-needed-to-run-for-office-volunteer/

New Direction for the GOP Begins at the Local Precinct Level – Conservatives Needed to Run for Office, Volunteer
Anger and frustration continue to mount as Americans express alarm at the direction in which the country is headed. 

In order to turn the tide and boost mid-term and general election results, conservatives must significantly increase political activity at the local level—the precinct.  As the precinct leader, the committee person (or captain) is the only party official directly elected by voters.  An individual serving in this capacity is the primary contact between voters, candidates and elected officials; the precinct committee person votes directly for the leadership of the party. What are the responsibilities of a committee person?  The following is a general checklist which may vary depending on the precinct:

• Elect a precinct captain to assume overall precinct leadership.
• Divide your precinct into geographical areas and assign portions of the precinct to each precinct committeeman.
• Recruit precinct volunteers and assign specific blocks (or areas) to them for door-to-door and telephone work.
• Have registration forms available in your precinct. Regularly check for newly moved-in Republicans and also for families who will have members turning 18 years of age before the next election.
• Maintain up-to-date records of the current Republican residents of your precinct.
• Attend precinct meetings. These are called for updating records, planning strategy and other organizational purposes.
• Attend district and or county Republican meetings. These will be great places to share information and ideas.
• Assist your precinct captain in recruiting election board workers.
• Assist your precinct captain in establishing election day GET-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) committees and a Precinct Election Headquarters.
• Distribute election information and candidate literature to the voters in your precinct.

How effective is this strategy?  Well, Obama utilized it successfully against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries.  According to The Precinct Project, Obama and his backers “came out of nowhere to defeat the complacent ‘powers that be’” in the Democrat Party. Many of the Republican Party precinct committee person slots, across the nation, are unfilled.  Of the 400,000 slots nationwide approximately 200,000 are vacant. This represents a huge opportunity for conservatives. So, in summary, a precinct committee person is tasked with helping to grow the party and with delivering the maximum number of votes from their precinct, on Election Day. If you would like to volunteer at your neighborhood precinct or run for office, visit the following website for local information: American Hometowns – Cities, Counties, and Towns You can also visit the following website (parts of which are under construction) to learn more about becoming a committee person, grass roots activism, how government works, pending legislation and more: Winds of Liberty

BARBARA CORCORAN: The Best Entrepreneurs Don't Know When to Quit

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140906172705-264544111-the-best-entrepreneurs-don-t-know-when-to-quit?_mSplash=1

The Best Entrepreneurs Don't Know When to Quit

Would you have funded Grace & Lace? Tell us in the comments.

I sit in a privileged seat as a Shark/investor on the Emmy-winning reality show Shark Tank and each season we hear hundreds of heartfelt pitches from passionate entrepreneurs. We get everything from the ingenious to the ridiculous, and get to put our own hard-earned money behind the ones we believe will be the big winners. Once a deal is closed, the fun part begins when I get to work one-on-one with the entrepreneur I’ve staked a claim in. I shepherd them from dream to execution, past all the hurdles and hard times, and if we’re all a little bit lucky, on to a genuine, breakout success!

How do I know when I’m watching a winning pitch? How can I tell I’ve found a product worth my time and money? It’s all about the people.

The best pitch I heard last season was from Grace & Lace, designers of a trendy line of lacy boot socks and leg warmers. When Melissa and Rick Hinnant burst onto the Shark Tank set, they exuded both the passion and street smarts that I know get all good entrepreneurs to the finish line. When they announced that they had $800,000 in sales in their first year of business, they got the attention of the Sharks. But what got my attention was Melissa and Rick’s backstory – a story of extreme resilience in the face of personal failure. The story they told proved they were great entrepreneurs who knew how to take a hit and keep on ticking.

To me, this is what can make or break a pitch. The best entrepreneurs have faced challenges and risen above them. That resilience is what I’m looking for when I hear new ideas on the show (and in life).

After all, even my own road to Shark Tank had some setbacks.

After selling my business, The Corcoran Group, for $66 million, I thought I’d happily ride off into the sunset on to retirement. Instead, I hustled to become a real estate commentator and contributor on any TV show that would have me. Eight years later, a call came in from Mark Burnett Productions, the famous creator of Survivor and The Apprentice, and it seemed the dream job I’d been searching for had finally arrived. He was starting a high-stakes reality show called Shark Tank on ABC and asked if I’d want to be one of the investor Sharks. Two weeks later, I signed the Shark Tank contract and began daydreaming about my new-life-to-be in famous Hollywood!

But a few days before I was to board my flight to Hollywood, I got a call from Mark Burnett’s assistant explaining they had some “bad news.” They’d decided to hire a different Shark. I just couldn’t believe the news and asked her to repeat it so I could let it sink in. I hung up the phone and clunked my head down on my desk in disappointment and disbelief. But then I did what I always did well – I got back up.

My old spunk came rushing back and I banged out an email to Mark Burnett. It read:

Dear Mark,

I understand you’ve asked another girl to dance instead of me. Although I appreciate being reserved as a fallback, I’m much more accustomed to coming in first.

I think you should consider inviting both of us to LA for your try-outs. Here are my reasons why:

• I do my best when my back’s against the wall. I love the heat of the competition as I’ve learned it brings out my best. I’ve had all my big successes on the heels of rejection and frankly, it’s right up my alley. There was Sister Stella Marie in 5th grade who said I’d always be stupid just because I couldn’t read. Then there was the New York old boy network trying to lock me out of their real estate fortunes, until I became their largest competitor. Then there was The Donald himself who wrongly swore in court I’d never see a penny of the $4m commission he owed me for saving his ass and making the largest land deal in the city’s history. And of course there was my ex-partner Ramoné Simoné who parted with the words, “You know you’ll never succeed without me!” I consider your rejection a lucky charm.

• If you have both ladies in LA, you can mix it up a bit and see which personalities make the best combination for your show. I’ve found in building teams myself that the combination of personalities is always more important than the expertise or strengths of single individuals. You may even drop a man for me because, believe it or not, I’m just as smart and mean as the next guy. 

• Last, I’ve known from the get-go the Shark role is a perfect fit for me. Everything I’ve done so far in the business and TV worlds has made me ready. My style is different than the other Sharks’ and your audience would fall in love with me. I’ve watched thirty-seven Dragon episodes so far and know I could rival the best Shark on each show in shrewdness and personality. It seems to me that the same two Sharks steal most of the shows and I know I’d be one of them. 
  

The reputation you have in your field is equal to the reputation I have in mine, Mark. I know you’re the best at what you do and I trust you’ll reach the right decision. I’ve booked my flight for the 6th and hope to be on that plane.

Thanks, Barbara

I hit the send button and the rest is history. It was that email that got me invited out to win my seat on Shark Tank.

The thing about successful entrepreneurs is that they don’t quit. They consider rejection, as I did, a ‘lucky charm’. I didn’t give up, because I knew Shark Tank was what I wanted, and that attitude got me my seat. My favorite entrepreneurs on Shark Tank have had the same spirit, the same gumption, to keep going after what they believed in, even in the face of tremendous personal and professional obstacles. So when I’m watching pitches this season on Shark Tank, I know what to look for: the people who know how to pick themselves back up.

Photo: Dave Moser

*********

Now we want to hear from you. Have you had a pitch that went great—or one that bombed? If you were a Shark, how would you decide which ideas to back? What makes a pitch unforgettable? Write your own post on LinkedIn using #SharkTankWeek or tell us in the comments. 

Watch clips of the Sharks' favorite pitches and don't miss Shark Tank Week starting September 7th on ABC.