What is federalism?

Federalism: Dividing power of government between the federal government and the states. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution gives states the right to make laws regarding anything not mentioned in the Constitution.

The founding fathers believed this was essential to preserve the individual rights of the states and to prevent the federal government from treading on state rights. This was essential to getting the Constitution passed, considering most states had differing laws regarding education, slavery, etc. 

The states were unwilling to sign a constitution that would take away these rights. Plus the founding fathers thought this was a good way to prevent the federal government from passing laws that created risky programs. Instead, it made it so a state could instigate risky programs, such as healthcare, education, abortion, etc. 

If successful, other states would copy. If not successful, other states would not copy. Likewise, if a state did something risky and failed, the other states could bail that state out. 

If, on the other hand, the federal government created a program (like healthcare, social security, etc.) and it failed, the U.S. would have to resort to another country to bail them our, or... the U.S. would fail to be a nation. 

It is to prevent such government intervention of state rights that Federalism was created by the founding fathers. 

What are assault weapons?

Assault Weapon: To conservatives: There's no such thing. It's just a creation. It's nothing more than a name that Democrats and people on the left created to gin up anti-gun sentiment among people. But there really is no official classification of "assault weapon." It doesn't exist. What gun isn't an assault weapon?

To liberals: A psychological creation to make people think guns are bad so they can gain sympathy and pass laws to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. It's an attempte to gain a renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips, etc.  It's an attempt to create their Utopian dream world where there are no bad guys and only good guys. 

What are low information voters?

Low information voters: Independence; people who have no clue who the president is and have an urge to vote because they "need to do their part." They generally vote for the most popular person, and generally have no idea why. They do not follow politics.

According to the New York Times in naming Obama the 2012 Man of the Year, "He won because he got the low information voters to vote for him. 

A low-information voter doesn't have enough information to know that he or she is in that community, so you can talk about them, even make fun of them, and they think you're talking about somebody else. 

Low-information, means you don't know, means you're not informed. Some low-information don't care, to the extent that they care around election time every year, but other than that, it's TMZ and the E! Entertainment channel.

You know, uninformed is not low informed. Uninformed is not they don't care to be informed. The low informed voter simply chooses to be informed about other things, like Claire Danes and what she did with Clinton after the Golden Globes. Or Kim Kardashian's baby with Kanye. I mean, they care more about that than they do the debt limit.

How do liberals define success?

Success:

Liberals define success by how many people are on the government dole.

Conservatives define success my how many people don't rely on the government.

Economics 101: Does amnesty decrease income gap?

So we have previously disproved that high taxes and unions do not improve income gaps, as the three states with the highest taxes, and forced unionization, were the three states listed here:

1. Arizona
2. New Mexico
3. California (top marginal tax is 13%)\

Interestingly enough, another means liberals use to try to decrease the income gap, to create fairness between the rich and poor, is amnesty.  The problem is, that all three states with the highest illegal immigration rates are the same three states listed above.  

So, it would appear that in order to decrease the income gap would be to do the opposite of what liberals propose, and that would be to lower taxes, get rid of unions, and get rid of illegal immigration.  

Could you imagine a politician proposing this?  

Waht is a narcissistt politician?

Narcissist politician: An inordinate fascination with one's self; excessive self love; selfcenteredness; smugness; a politician who knows he right; It's basically the arrogant, all knowing, never wrong politician who finds that it's best to force his views on us whether we like it or not. It's for our own good

Economics 101: Do unions decrease the income gap?

Obama has said that raising taxes on the rich would decrease income inequality, or reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.  But, as we proved yesterday, this is not true.  So they also say that unions can improve the income gap.  Is this true. Let us look at the facts.

A state by state comparison did nothing to improve the income gap either.  The following states are all forced union states:

1. New York
2. California
3. New Mexico

This means that in these states you take a job with a unionized firm, you must join the union.  All three of these states have the highest inequality of any other state. 

On the contrary, the states with the lowest income gaps are the following: 

1. Iowa
2. Utah
3. Wyoming

So this goes to show that neither high taxes, nor unions, decrease the gap between the rich and the poor.  This goes against everything taught by liberal institutions.