By Don Jans
Our Work Begins November 7.
As the saying goes, “I see a light at the end of the tunnel and it is not a train.” If the positive trend in the polls continues, we will awaken on November 7 from a horrible four year nightmare. I fear what was perceived as an administration with no leadership ability, a child president trying to do an adult’s job and an administration in a constant state of confusion (which it was), was also an administration with a misguided plan to greatly advance the transformation of America from a free, independent and capitalistic society to a highly regulated classless society with a centralized government. Never had we seen this so overtly put forth. Yes, there truly is hope that change is coming and forward means straight to Chicago.
As blatant as Obama and his surrogates have been promoting and implementing their Marxist/Progressive program, we must remember they did not originate this program, nor will it end with their departure. This Marxist/Progressive program has been promulgated for at least a hundred years. It has been most overtly promoted under the administrations of Wilson, FDR, and now Obama, but has been advanced under other Democratic and some Republican administrations.
We freedom and opportunity loving Americans cannot take a break, even with the great news we anticipate. Our work must continue with even more vigor on November 7th and beyond. We began the fight for individual freedom and independence with real purpose early in the decade of the 1770’s. Unfortunately, we thought the fight ended in 1781, only to learn in 2012 we have less freedom and are taxed heavier and less fair than we were in 1775. The weight of government from Washington D.C. is much more of a burden then it was from London.
This was recognized most recently by the movement called the Tea Party movement. Senators Simpson, Lugar, Governor Crist and others have learned party does not shield you when it comes to infringing on American freedoms. The freedom and opportunity movement truly puts freedom above political party.
Proponents of the Marxist/Progressive movement would tell us they are champions of the underprivileged and minorities. They say they are advancing the rights of these groups and making society fairer. What we have come to learn is by them diminishing and chastising even one successful person, the American Dream is tarnished for all. It is the promotion of effort and success that increases not only the aspirations, but also the living standards of all.
It has become common to hear the movement of the Marxist/Progressives referred to as European Socialism. It is that for sure. However, it is so much more than a redistribution of wealth through a confiscatory tax system that redistributes and wastes much of our national GDP. This economic system will always result in slow to no growth as Marx acknowledged and the years of FDR and Obama have proven. The Marxist/Progressive movement is also an attitude that permeates all of government. This attitude says government knows better than the private American how they should run their lives, families, businesses and even how to think.
Government, meaning elected, appointed and hired persons of government, no longer see themselves as servants of the people, but as all knowing and yes even above the law rulers. This has transitioned over time as more government personnel came from academia and not from business. Academics have always viewed themselves as superior to the people.
Karl Marx was of the same persuasion. He was a Doctor of Philosophy and knew nobody knew more about anything than he did. Like so many academics and government employees of today, Marx claimed to be a champion of the worker and the poor, but he detested them and refused to associate with them. His purpose was to use them to advance his own cause and elevate his power position. This is no different from present day Marxist/Progressives.
We must remember what the Marxist/Progressive movement is. Yes, they want to change a free and independent capitalistic society to a “fair and just” classless society. This is being done by regulating day to day activities of businesses and regulating decisions made by individual citizens. Dodd/Frank, Obama care, the EPA, The Department of Education, Department of Human Resources and many other regulatory agencies are advancing this movement. More importantly they believe their way of thinking and their moral values are correct and proper and must be held by all. This is what academics have always believed, and the Marxist/Progressive movement is controlled by academics today just as it was during the days of Marx.
Every time government gives something, they take even more control. If indeed we rid ourselves of this nightmare we have endured for the last four years, we must never forget the horrible lessons we have been reminded can and will happen. Not only must we continue the fight for economic freedoms, we must also fight for the freedoms we won in the Revolutionary War. Our founders had the wisdom that power should not be centralized in the federal government. We now know the dangers. All federal regulatory agencies must be curtailed and/or eliminated. We should start with the elimination of the EPA and The Department of Education. All others should be evaluated, and if not eliminated, they should be reduced by no less than 25% to start.
We must not relax. Our economic and social freedoms have been greatly infringed. We must insist the new administration we anticipate adheres to these very principles Sam Adams championed 240 years ago.
Don Jans, Author and Speaker
My Grandchildren’s America
www.mygrandchildrensameica.com
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
BOHICA The Magnificent (or How We Screw Ourselves)
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Nikita Khrushchev said in an address to Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956, "We will bury you."
Later, on August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you."
The reference is based on the Communist Manifesto, where the wealthy producers of society are portrayed as powerful plutocrats who use and destroy the working class to achieve the aims of their greed for riches and power. Marxism calls for a rise of the workers, a rise to defeat the wealthy bourgeoisie and establish a society where there are no classes, no possessions, no riches, and no individuality. "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism", reads the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable".
Nikita Khrushchev said in an address to Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956, "We will bury you."
Later, on August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you."
The reference is based on the Communist Manifesto, where the wealthy producers of society are portrayed as powerful plutocrats who use and destroy the working class to achieve the aims of their greed for riches and power. Marxism calls for a rise of the workers, a rise to defeat the wealthy bourgeoisie and establish a society where there are no classes, no possessions, no riches, and no individuality. "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism", reads the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable".
Khrushchev repeated this Marxist thesis once again at a meeting with journalists in the U.S. in September 1959.
While Americans interpreted the quote to mean that the Soviet Union would defeat the United States, or that the phase was a nuclear threat, the statement was ideological. The phrase "We will bury you" peered deeply into history, accompanied by every utopian scheme ever conjured up. Karl Marx believed that communism was a natural conclusion for humanity, and it was liberty that is a disease. Liberty enables individuality and opportunity, an allowance for people to exercise their selfish desires, and separate themselves from the masses, elevating themselves to something above other people, using them, acting like a cancer devouring the lower class for the sake of their greed.
A hard life awaits those that fall into the trap of socialism, for while they believe they are working towards fairness and equity, instead of eliminating the classes, they are forming two new ones - the haves, and the have nots; the controlled, and the controllers. The dreams of Marxism live on in Western Governments, acting as a caring and fair system, while actually a system Karl Marx envisioned. The international leftists work toward the dreams of Karl Marx, and the American liberal democrats are trying today to put into place the oppressive system in the United States. Such a system requires administrators, overlords, and the Democrat Party politicians believe they are the members of that club of the ruling elite. Despite the claims of Marx's followers, their push is for the slavery of the people. As the populace realizes the truth, they fight back, which is why we are seeing Mitt Romney taking over the lead in the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election. It turns out that freedom is man's natural desire.
Humanity, however, easily falls for schemes of statism. When the leaders call for democracy, the people flock like sheep. They come to the trough, ready to drink the soothing waters of hope and change, not realizing that behind the promises are lies and enslavement.
Karl Marx once said, "Democracy is the path to socialism."
The Soviet Union is no more, but in the United States her spirit lives, calling for an end to our republic, calling the U.S. Constitution antiquated and no longer applicable to our ever-changing society. The workers call out through the labor unions for statism, the politicians cry out for the rich to pay just a little more in an already oppressive progressive tax system. The producers are told they need to pay their fair share, and the workers are promised higher wages as they become more and more enraged over the bonuses and lofty pay-outs of executives and CEOs. America's capitalism has been proclaimed a failure. The working class threatens to rise up, and those that can stop such madness bicker among themselves over the purity of candidates, and differences of personalities. While utopian schemes threaten to end our way of life in America, we fight over minor differences. We screw ourselves by not uniting against the leftist threat, leaving us only one option after the dust settles. . . to bend over and accept what we brought upon ourselves.
The Constitution is merely ink and paper if we don't fight for it, and liberty is merely an idea if we don't practice it.
In the process, we threaten to bury ourselves.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Times that Try Men's Souls
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." --Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, 1776
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Super Storm Leaves Super Flooding
Storm leaves behind 'unthinkable' damage
Millions are grappling with the aftermath of floods, fires, outages, and even snow in Sandy's wake.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
MSNBC Attacks Romney for Relief to Hurricane Sandy Victims
MSNBC bashes Mitt Romney for providing relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy
Apparently blinded by their desire to see Barack Obama re-elected, hosts at MSNBCattacked Mitt Romney for collecting food and supplies for victims of Hurricane Sandy at a rally in Kettering, Ohio, on Tuesday.
Hurricane Sandy, Presidential Candidates, and Grover Cleveland
By Kevin Price, Publisher, Editor and Chief, US Daily Review.
The conventional wisdom when it comes to the devastating storm called Hurricane Sandy, which is pounding the East Coast, is that if anyone is benefiting from this politically, it is Barack Obama. The reason for this, we are told, is because both candidates are suspending their campaigns through the storm, but the President will have daily opportunity to discuss the storm and act, "presidential." Those who think Romney will benefit will argue that Obama's campaign was on the ropes and although this prevents Romney from continuing to beat on the Obama presidency, it also prevents the President from fighting back. In addition, the areas hardest hit by the storms are, by and large, places that would vote for the President. With this pounding, the last thing on the mind of many of these will be going out to vote. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has a two to one advantage among those who describe themselves "most enthusiastic" about voting. I don't see many of them deterred by "Frankenstorm." In fact, I expect them to be emboldened by it as one final reminder of how difficult the Obama years have been even (as in this case) when it is no fault of his.
However, there is a way for both the candidates and the American people (particularly those hard hit by the storm) to benefit by the candidates' campaigning. What if they were campaigning to raise money for the charities that help at the event of storms? What if they still hit the trail and told voters, "don't give money to me, but to..." or, better still, "for each day this storm pounds the East Coast we will commit each dollar raised to help in the recovery of those states." All of them could look very presidential and help a great cause. Furthermore, it would sever as a needed reminder of how the US has historically solved problems through barn raising rather than hand outs.
Such an approach could be the taking from the chapter of one of my favorite Presidents, Grover Cleveland. He is one that is largely neglected by the media and historians today, which are indicators of their own as being someone I would likely admire. He is the only President to not serve his terms sequentially, being both the 22nd (1885 to 1889) and 24th (1893 to 1897) President.
Cleveland was not driven by populist notions, but by principle. He saw serving in office as a sacred responsibility, stating that "Your every voter, as surely as your chief magistrate, exercises a public trust." Cleveland was different in his style and substance. While today's President's were quick to make promises, Cleveland made commitments, stating "Though the people support the government; the government should not support the people." He simply did not believe that philanthropy was the role of the federal government according to the US Constitution.
Cleveland was a stickler when it came to that Constitution and he set a hard standard for other Presidents to maintain. History showed that most would not. Dr. Burt Folsom, in his excellent book, New Deal or Raw Deal, pointed out that "In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faces crises. Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief. In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas. After the bill passed the Senate and House, Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.' He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'" Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon its fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. Folsom noted Cleveland's response, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."
Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government, that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.
Writer Lawrence W. Reed has noted that "Grover Cleveland proved an exceptional president, not because of the experience he brought to the federal government but because of two things that matter much more — character and principles." This was seen in his decision to avoid the politically expedient in pursuit of what was right.
Politicians are not likely to do what I suggested because they would be afraid that voters would interpret that as meaning there "is no role for the federal government in such tragedies." What a sad reason for not doing the next right thing.
The conventional wisdom when it comes to the devastating storm called Hurricane Sandy, which is pounding the East Coast, is that if anyone is benefiting from this politically, it is Barack Obama. The reason for this, we are told, is because both candidates are suspending their campaigns through the storm, but the President will have daily opportunity to discuss the storm and act, "presidential." Those who think Romney will benefit will argue that Obama's campaign was on the ropes and although this prevents Romney from continuing to beat on the Obama presidency, it also prevents the President from fighting back. In addition, the areas hardest hit by the storms are, by and large, places that would vote for the President. With this pounding, the last thing on the mind of many of these will be going out to vote. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has a two to one advantage among those who describe themselves "most enthusiastic" about voting. I don't see many of them deterred by "Frankenstorm." In fact, I expect them to be emboldened by it as one final reminder of how difficult the Obama years have been even (as in this case) when it is no fault of his.
However, there is a way for both the candidates and the American people (particularly those hard hit by the storm) to benefit by the candidates' campaigning. What if they were campaigning to raise money for the charities that help at the event of storms? What if they still hit the trail and told voters, "don't give money to me, but to..." or, better still, "for each day this storm pounds the East Coast we will commit each dollar raised to help in the recovery of those states." All of them could look very presidential and help a great cause. Furthermore, it would sever as a needed reminder of how the US has historically solved problems through barn raising rather than hand outs.
Such an approach could be the taking from the chapter of one of my favorite Presidents, Grover Cleveland. He is one that is largely neglected by the media and historians today, which are indicators of their own as being someone I would likely admire. He is the only President to not serve his terms sequentially, being both the 22nd (1885 to 1889) and 24th (1893 to 1897) President.
Cleveland was not driven by populist notions, but by principle. He saw serving in office as a sacred responsibility, stating that "Your every voter, as surely as your chief magistrate, exercises a public trust." Cleveland was different in his style and substance. While today's President's were quick to make promises, Cleveland made commitments, stating "Though the people support the government; the government should not support the people." He simply did not believe that philanthropy was the role of the federal government according to the US Constitution.
Cleveland was a stickler when it came to that Constitution and he set a hard standard for other Presidents to maintain. History showed that most would not. Dr. Burt Folsom, in his excellent book, New Deal or Raw Deal, pointed out that "In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faces crises. Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief. In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas. After the bill passed the Senate and House, Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.' He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'" Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon its fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. Folsom noted Cleveland's response, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."
Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government, that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.
Writer Lawrence W. Reed has noted that "Grover Cleveland proved an exceptional president, not because of the experience he brought to the federal government but because of two things that matter much more — character and principles." This was seen in his decision to avoid the politically expedient in pursuit of what was right.
Politicians are not likely to do what I suggested because they would be afraid that voters would interpret that as meaning there "is no role for the federal government in such tragedies." What a sad reason for not doing the next right thing.
--
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Kevin Price
Host
Price of Business on KTEK 1110, PriceofBusiness.com
Home of Bloomberg Radio on morning drive time.
Publisher and Editor in Chief, USDailyReview.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive
Like his new Facebook page at
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Monday, October 29, 2012
A Little Re-Scheduling, Anyone?
by JASmius
How would this be for an October surprise?:
But...since when has the law ever stopped Red Barry from illegally ruling by decree? He imposed the Cap & Trade scheme he couldn't through the last Donk SuperCongress via EPA regulations; he imposed the DREAM Act he also couldn't get through that Congress via Executive Order; he made recess appointments despite the Senate not being in recess. Clearly he has established a pattern of lawlessness and abuse of executive power without precedent in American history, and he hasn't even gotten to a second term yet. Would "postponing" next Tuesday's election really be all that far-fetched?
And by "postponing," I mean, of course, "canceling". If O were to try this, there's no way he would set a new date for the election; it would, instead, be postponed "indefinitely". Since this would be widely seen as precisely what it would be - a coup de tat - he wouldn't dare allow the election to take place, because this would destroy both him and the entire Democrat Party - permanently. It would be a one-way trip; once the proverbial trigger was pulled, he, and they, would be committed, and could not possibly turn back.
What the country could do about it? Not much. Sure, the GOP House could and would impeach Obama, but does anybody seriously believe that the same Senate Democrats every one of which voted to ram ObamaCare down the throats of the American public would muster up twenty votes to convict The One and remove him from office? And even if, by some miracle, they did, why would he not simply ignore that like he has every other legal hurdle and simply entrench himself in the White House like a badger in its burrow? When the man whose constitutional responsibility is to execute the law(s) of the land refuses to abide by them, who would enforce them on him?
Yeah, it sounds like something out of the X-Files. But I can't help noting that Carney didn't categorically deny the press queries, as any presidential spokesman with three brain cells to rub together should have. He said, "We're getting way ahead of ourselves here"; which implies that it's something they would, or have, or are, considering.
I"m not predicting it. But desperation and aspiring totalitarianism are a very, very dangerous combination, and make it impossible to completely rule out.
In short, we will not be able to begin to relax until President-Elect Romney finishes reciting the oath of office after noon next January 20th. And maybe not even then.
[cross-posted @ Hard Starboard]
How would this be for an October surprise?:
Q Jay, some of the utilities are saying that the power is going to be out in some areas for up to 10 days, which would obviously include Election Day. Is there any contingency planning to alter the Election Day schedule because of this?
MR. CARNEY: I think that is not something I’m able to address. The fact is the storm is just taking effect now and having an impact now and making landfall I believe tonight. We have to focus on not the campaign and not the election, but on making sure that all federal resources are both prepositioned and in place to help states and localities respond to the storm, to help Americans who are affected by the storm. That’s our focus right now.
Q Would the President have the power to adjust Election Day?
First things first: No, Barack Obama does NOT have the power to "adjust" Election Day. Not according to the law, anyway. Section 7, Chapter 1, Title 2 of the United States Code clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally states:MR. CARNEY: I don’t know the answer to that question. I think you’re getting way ahead of yourself here.
The Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in every even-numbered year is established as the day for the election in each of the states and territories of the United States of representatives and delegates to the Congress commencing on the third day of January next thereafter.There's no wiggle room in that verbiage. It's been in place in every election going back to the beginning of the republic, through the Civil War, World War I, and World War II, times of national emergency far, far worse than a hurricane. It's the law. Period.
But...since when has the law ever stopped Red Barry from illegally ruling by decree? He imposed the Cap & Trade scheme he couldn't through the last Donk SuperCongress via EPA regulations; he imposed the DREAM Act he also couldn't get through that Congress via Executive Order; he made recess appointments despite the Senate not being in recess. Clearly he has established a pattern of lawlessness and abuse of executive power without precedent in American history, and he hasn't even gotten to a second term yet. Would "postponing" next Tuesday's election really be all that far-fetched?
And by "postponing," I mean, of course, "canceling". If O were to try this, there's no way he would set a new date for the election; it would, instead, be postponed "indefinitely". Since this would be widely seen as precisely what it would be - a coup de tat - he wouldn't dare allow the election to take place, because this would destroy both him and the entire Democrat Party - permanently. It would be a one-way trip; once the proverbial trigger was pulled, he, and they, would be committed, and could not possibly turn back.
What the country could do about it? Not much. Sure, the GOP House could and would impeach Obama, but does anybody seriously believe that the same Senate Democrats every one of which voted to ram ObamaCare down the throats of the American public would muster up twenty votes to convict The One and remove him from office? And even if, by some miracle, they did, why would he not simply ignore that like he has every other legal hurdle and simply entrench himself in the White House like a badger in its burrow? When the man whose constitutional responsibility is to execute the law(s) of the land refuses to abide by them, who would enforce them on him?
Yeah, it sounds like something out of the X-Files. But I can't help noting that Carney didn't categorically deny the press queries, as any presidential spokesman with three brain cells to rub together should have. He said, "We're getting way ahead of ourselves here"; which implies that it's something they would, or have, or are, considering.
I"m not predicting it. But desperation and aspiring totalitarianism are a very, very dangerous combination, and make it impossible to completely rule out.
In short, we will not be able to begin to relax until President-Elect Romney finishes reciting the oath of office after noon next January 20th. And maybe not even then.
[cross-posted @ Hard Starboard]
Patrick Henry: The Painful Truth
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." --Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, 1775
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Why We Still Need the Electoral College
By Kevin Price
The United States Constitution was made by the states, for the states. It is designed to not only create a more efficient federal government, but to also protect the interest of the states. The government's Archives' website describes the Electoral College as "a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote." Maybe, but the bigger reason is that the founders wanted each state to have a voice in elections.
Each state has a certain number of Electors. The votes are a combination of the number of US House members a state has and their number of Senators (always two). This means that even one of the smallest states, like Vermont, has at least 3 Electoral votes (it has one Congressman and two Senators). Meanwhile the largest state (California) has 55 Electoral votes (two Senators, 53 House members). Vermont's population is only 621,000, while California has over 36 million. Mathematically, California is 57 times larger than Vermont. However, it is only 18 times more powerful in the Electoral College. It is designed to make sure that Vermont and all the other smaller states have political influence.
Because of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate must garner a minimum of 270 votes in order to win. It takes a minimum of 11 states to win the White House, thanks to the Electoral College. If it were pure popular vote, the voice of most of the states would not be heard. In fact, without the Electoral College several cities would only have a voice. In 2008, for example, 138 million voted for President. In fact, urban areas would be the only ones that would matter to presidential candidates.
Advertising is, without question, one of the single biggest costs of running for office. Advertising in cities is expensive, but nationwide it is outrageous and the cost per vote in big cities is a fraction of what it is when you are trying to reach every state. With that, urban areas will be the only ones that matter to presidential candidates. The needs of entire states and regions outside urban areas would be of little consequences.
Interestingly, with the exception of a few major urban areas, the vast majority of big cities vote for candidates that support larger government, less individual responsibility, and with disregard for economic growth. The death of the Electoral College would lead to the demise of liberty.
Now opponents of the Electoral College are complaining that the argument that all states deserve the attention of candidates is moot, since over 90 percent of all general election dollars are only spent on "swing states." These are states that are "too close to call" and politicians are putting almost all of their energies there. What the opponents are missing, is where those "swing states" are.
The swing states are as follows:
States Obama Romney Obama Romney
Colo. 47.7% 47.9% 0 9
Fla. 46.7% 48.8% 0 29
Iowa 49.0% 46.6% 6 0
Nev. 49.0% 46.0% 6 0
N.H. 47.8% 48.8% 0 4
N.C. 44.7% 50.3% 0 15
Ohio 48.1% 46.0% 18 0
Va. 48.0% 48.0% 0 13
Wis. 49.8% 47.0% 10 0
Swing-State Votes 40 70
Leaning/Likely State Votes 237 191
Total Overall Votes 277 261
When you look at this list, you see several small states on it. States that, without an Electoral College, would be totally ignored. Very small states like New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada would be completely ignored without the Electoral College.
There is not an electoral scenario that doesn't make an eloquent case for an Electoral College. That includes the "swing state" situation because tiny little states like New Hampshire only matters because they are in contention and the Electoral votes make them "matter."
The United States Constitution was made by the states, for the states. It is designed to not only create a more efficient federal government, but to also protect the interest of the states. The government's Archives' website describes the Electoral College as "a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote." Maybe, but the bigger reason is that the founders wanted each state to have a voice in elections.
Each state has a certain number of Electors. The votes are a combination of the number of US House members a state has and their number of Senators (always two). This means that even one of the smallest states, like Vermont, has at least 3 Electoral votes (it has one Congressman and two Senators). Meanwhile the largest state (California) has 55 Electoral votes (two Senators, 53 House members). Vermont's population is only 621,000, while California has over 36 million. Mathematically, California is 57 times larger than Vermont. However, it is only 18 times more powerful in the Electoral College. It is designed to make sure that Vermont and all the other smaller states have political influence.
Because of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate must garner a minimum of 270 votes in order to win. It takes a minimum of 11 states to win the White House, thanks to the Electoral College. If it were pure popular vote, the voice of most of the states would not be heard. In fact, without the Electoral College several cities would only have a voice. In 2008, for example, 138 million voted for President. In fact, urban areas would be the only ones that would matter to presidential candidates.
Advertising is, without question, one of the single biggest costs of running for office. Advertising in cities is expensive, but nationwide it is outrageous and the cost per vote in big cities is a fraction of what it is when you are trying to reach every state. With that, urban areas will be the only ones that matter to presidential candidates. The needs of entire states and regions outside urban areas would be of little consequences.
Interestingly, with the exception of a few major urban areas, the vast majority of big cities vote for candidates that support larger government, less individual responsibility, and with disregard for economic growth. The death of the Electoral College would lead to the demise of liberty.
Now opponents of the Electoral College are complaining that the argument that all states deserve the attention of candidates is moot, since over 90 percent of all general election dollars are only spent on "swing states." These are states that are "too close to call" and politicians are putting almost all of their energies there. What the opponents are missing, is where those "swing states" are.
The swing states are as follows:
States Obama Romney Obama Romney
Colo. 47.7% 47.9% 0 9
Fla. 46.7% 48.8% 0 29
Iowa 49.0% 46.6% 6 0
Nev. 49.0% 46.0% 6 0
N.H. 47.8% 48.8% 0 4
N.C. 44.7% 50.3% 0 15
Ohio 48.1% 46.0% 18 0
Va. 48.0% 48.0% 0 13
Wis. 49.8% 47.0% 10 0
Swing-State Votes 40 70
Leaning/Likely State Votes 237 191
Total Overall Votes 277 261
When you look at this list, you see several small states on it. States that, without an Electoral College, would be totally ignored. Very small states like New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada would be completely ignored without the Electoral College.
There is not an electoral scenario that doesn't make an eloquent case for an Electoral College. That includes the "swing state" situation because tiny little states like New Hampshire only matters because they are in contention and the Electoral votes make them "matter."
--
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Kevin Price
Host
Price of Business on KTEK 1110, PriceofBusiness.com
Home of Bloomberg Radio on morning drive time.
Publisher and Editor in Chief, USDailyReview.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive
Like his new Facebook page at
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
What George Washington Thought of a Large National Debt
"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable." --George Washington, Message to the House of Representatives, 1793
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Michelle Obama Worried Liberals Too Stupid, Too Dependent To Vote?
By J.J. Jackson
It's a hard life being a liberal. You apparently don't know how to do anything. Worse, not knowing how to do anything prohibits you from voting for your fellow liberals. Don't take my word for it. Just ask Michelle Obama.
In an impassioned plea to her husband's base, Michelle laid out all the reason why liberal loyalists had to get out early to vote:
"You wake up on Election Day – you might have a cold, babysitter gets sick, it’s raining, car broke down, I mean I could go on – toilet overflowing. There are so many ways to mess up a day when you don’t have a lot of time.” [1]
Gee, it almost sounds like Michelle Obama is worried that God has it in for her husband. What with all these potential calamities she envisions befalling his minions. Damn that evil God person ... Michelle always knew He was an evil Republican!
Seriously though? An overflowing toilet prevents you from voting on Election Day? Ok, how about this? You shut off the water and stop the toilet from overflowing. Well GOLLY! Gee, never thunk about that ... a-yup!
Then, after turning off the water, get your butt down to the polls, vote, then come home and deal with the toilet. Or are Obama's core supporters unable to figure this out? It's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.
Babysitter calls off sick? Uh ... just a thought here, but how about getting neighbors or family to watch the kids? Heck, you could just take them with you. Kids are allowed to go to the polls, in case you didn't know.
You have a cold? A cold? Gee, I'd be more worried about something more serious, like cancer, sidelining me. Because a "cold" is hardly going to stop someone, who wants to vote, from getting to the polls.
It's raining? Hmmm ... how about grabbing an umbrella? No, apparently that's too difficult for the average Obama voter.
Car breaks down? Well, isn't that what your "Obama Phone" is for? Call someone to come pick you up! Or, perish the thought, you could just walk.
Like I said, it sure is tough being an incompetent liberal who doesn't know how to do anything. If I had to rely on these sorts of sorry souls to do something for me, I'd be worried too.
[1] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michelle-vote-early-because-your-toilet-may-be-overflowing-election-day
=======================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn
It's a hard life being a liberal. You apparently don't know how to do anything. Worse, not knowing how to do anything prohibits you from voting for your fellow liberals. Don't take my word for it. Just ask Michelle Obama.
In an impassioned plea to her husband's base, Michelle laid out all the reason why liberal loyalists had to get out early to vote:
"You wake up on Election Day – you might have a cold, babysitter gets sick, it’s raining, car broke down, I mean I could go on – toilet overflowing. There are so many ways to mess up a day when you don’t have a lot of time.” [1]
Gee, it almost sounds like Michelle Obama is worried that God has it in for her husband. What with all these potential calamities she envisions befalling his minions. Damn that evil God person ... Michelle always knew He was an evil Republican!
Seriously though? An overflowing toilet prevents you from voting on Election Day? Ok, how about this? You shut off the water and stop the toilet from overflowing. Well GOLLY! Gee, never thunk about that ... a-yup!
Then, after turning off the water, get your butt down to the polls, vote, then come home and deal with the toilet. Or are Obama's core supporters unable to figure this out? It's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.
Babysitter calls off sick? Uh ... just a thought here, but how about getting neighbors or family to watch the kids? Heck, you could just take them with you. Kids are allowed to go to the polls, in case you didn't know.
You have a cold? A cold? Gee, I'd be more worried about something more serious, like cancer, sidelining me. Because a "cold" is hardly going to stop someone, who wants to vote, from getting to the polls.
It's raining? Hmmm ... how about grabbing an umbrella? No, apparently that's too difficult for the average Obama voter.
Car breaks down? Well, isn't that what your "Obama Phone" is for? Call someone to come pick you up! Or, perish the thought, you could just walk.
Like I said, it sure is tough being an incompetent liberal who doesn't know how to do anything. If I had to rely on these sorts of sorry souls to do something for me, I'd be worried too.
[1] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michelle-vote-early-because-your-toilet-may-be-overflowing-election-day
=======================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn
Hurricane Sandy Proving to be a Major Weather Event
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The media always seems to expect the next Hurricane to be the next superstorm. They usually overplay their hand. This time, with Hurricane Sandy, the devastation predicted may be the coming reality.
Tens of thousands of people are evacuating. As Sandy approaches the Eastern Seaboard, she is colliding with two other storms. The hybrid storm is being predicted as the worst storm to hit the East Coast. . . ever, and that includes The Perfect Storm of 1991.
The Associated Press listed five major reasons why Sandy is expected to be one of the worst storms in decades: 1) it's a hurricane, 2) it's set to combine with another winter storm hanging out nearby, 3) then it's set to pick up Arctic winds, 4) next comes a full moon -- thus, high tides that in turn threaten higher storm surges, 5) with winds expected to reach 74 miles per hour, the storm promises to wreak havoc on the coast's power supply lines.
Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the forecasting service Weather Underground, is suggesting we may see a billion dollars in damage - The Perfect Storm in 1991 caused $200 million in damage.
The media always seems to expect the next Hurricane to be the next superstorm. They usually overplay their hand. This time, with Hurricane Sandy, the devastation predicted may be the coming reality.
Tens of thousands of people are evacuating. As Sandy approaches the Eastern Seaboard, she is colliding with two other storms. The hybrid storm is being predicted as the worst storm to hit the East Coast. . . ever, and that includes The Perfect Storm of 1991.
The Associated Press listed five major reasons why Sandy is expected to be one of the worst storms in decades: 1) it's a hurricane, 2) it's set to combine with another winter storm hanging out nearby, 3) then it's set to pick up Arctic winds, 4) next comes a full moon -- thus, high tides that in turn threaten higher storm surges, 5) with winds expected to reach 74 miles per hour, the storm promises to wreak havoc on the coast's power supply lines.
New York and Philadelphia have shut down their mass-transit systems. Mass evacuations are in place with the knowledge that Sandy killed fifty-one people in Haiti alone, and another couple dozen more in other Caribbean countries. Officials expect massive flooding, including inland flooding, and a storm surge that could paralyze coastal cities. Airlines are moving their aircraft to safety, Amtrack has canceled train runs, and over a thousand National Guardsmen are at the ready. On Sunday alone, power was knocked out in places such as Hampton Roads, Virginia, as rough waves crashed along the coast. This storm is expected to cause havoc for 800 miles from the East Coast to the Great Lakes.
Jeff Masters, meteorology director of the forecasting service Weather Underground, is suggesting we may see a billion dollars in damage - The Perfect Storm in 1991 caused $200 million in damage.
The large storm is expected to also be a long-lasting event, bringing heavy rains for days.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Breaking: Sandy Prompts NYC, Other Coastal Evacuations - AccuWeather
5 Reasons why Sandy is Expected to be a Superstorm - Wall Street Journal
Sunday, October 28, 2012
al-Qaeda: Kidnap Westerners
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Islam is a barbaric ideology based on the teachings of a violent false prophet. They can't be trusted, and they are willing to do anything to further their false religion. As the followers of Islam practice jihad, sometimes they are captured. These Muslims in prison have become important sources of information in our war against Islamic terrorism. Islamic leaders, however, have been working out ways to regain possession of their people. The leader of al-Qaeda has spoken up, and says it is time for Muslims to kidnap Westerners to exchange for imprisoned jihadists.
Ayman Al-Zawahri also urged support for Syria's uprising and called for the implementation of Islamic Shariah law in Egypt.
The call for kidnapping Westerners, and increasing the hold of Shariah on the Arab Spring nations, was provided on a video. The undated video appearance of the Egyptian-born jihadist also called for the theocratic clerics in Egypt to ensure clear mention of Shariah in the new constitution.
Islam is a barbaric ideology based on the teachings of a violent false prophet. They can't be trusted, and they are willing to do anything to further their false religion. As the followers of Islam practice jihad, sometimes they are captured. These Muslims in prison have become important sources of information in our war against Islamic terrorism. Islamic leaders, however, have been working out ways to regain possession of their people. The leader of al-Qaeda has spoken up, and says it is time for Muslims to kidnap Westerners to exchange for imprisoned jihadists.
Ayman Al-Zawahri also urged support for Syria's uprising and called for the implementation of Islamic Shariah law in Egypt.
The call for kidnapping Westerners, and increasing the hold of Shariah on the Arab Spring nations, was provided on a video. The undated video appearance of the Egyptian-born jihadist also called for the theocratic clerics in Egypt to ensure clear mention of Shariah in the new constitution.
Added note: You will notice that in stories such as this one the mainstream media calls the fundamentalist Muslims that call for Islamic control over government, which also results in a stronger control of the people by the theocratic government, "conservatives." The press calls the more moderate Muslims "liberals." However, in the West, conservatives call for less government control over the people, and liberals call for more government control over the people with big government policies. Based on the political spectrum that rates governments with stronger central government control as being on the left, and less intrusive governments as being on the right, the media is labeling the Muslims the opposite of what they are. The facts, however, mean nothing to the liberal media. They label the violent, religious fanatics of Islam, conservatives because they want the public to compare American conservatives to the jihadists. In terms of seeking government control, the Democrat Party is much closer to being like terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, than the rightwing is. The religious support of a particular ideology is not a factor in determining if an ideology is the the right, or the left. The right/left paradigm is dependent upon the amount of government control applied by the particular ideology.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Unconstitutional Federal Move Against Texas: Texas Told They Can't Arrest International Election Observers
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof."
It is up to each State the manner of holding elections. If they don't want non-citizens near their polling places, that is their prerogative. For the federal government to force upon the States observers is criminal. If a State decides to allow observers, and some States have, that is fine. In turn, the federal government cannot force the State to allow international observers.
When Texas was told they would have international observers at their polling places, Texas responded that representatives from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) being within 100 feet of a polling place's entrance is a criminal offense, and those persons will be arrested.
The State Department has indicated that these international election observers have "full immunity" from being arrested in the United States, under U.S. law.
Federal Law does not supersede State Law in this instance. The Constitution is clear, the manner in which elections are held are up to the States, and if they don't want observers, the federal government, nor any international organization, can force upon the State such persons.
For those of you getting ready to use the Supremacy Clause as an opposing argument, read Article VI carefully. Federal Laws are only supreme when the laws are within the limitations of the Constitution - and once again, there is no authority granted to the federal government allowing them to dictate to the States anything regarding the manner in which they shall run elections.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
State Dept: Texas can't arrest international election observers - Washington Examiner
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof."
It is up to each State the manner of holding elections. If they don't want non-citizens near their polling places, that is their prerogative. For the federal government to force upon the States observers is criminal. If a State decides to allow observers, and some States have, that is fine. In turn, the federal government cannot force the State to allow international observers.
When Texas was told they would have international observers at their polling places, Texas responded that representatives from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) being within 100 feet of a polling place's entrance is a criminal offense, and those persons will be arrested.
The State Department has indicated that these international election observers have "full immunity" from being arrested in the United States, under U.S. law.
Federal Law does not supersede State Law in this instance. The Constitution is clear, the manner in which elections are held are up to the States, and if they don't want observers, the federal government, nor any international organization, can force upon the State such persons.
For those of you getting ready to use the Supremacy Clause as an opposing argument, read Article VI carefully. Federal Laws are only supreme when the laws are within the limitations of the Constitution - and once again, there is no authority granted to the federal government allowing them to dictate to the States anything regarding the manner in which they shall run elections.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
State Dept: Texas can't arrest international election observers - Washington Examiner
California Propositions 2012 Voter's Guide by Conservative Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A large number of proposition are on this election's California ballot. Some of them have Republicans at odds with each other. The battle between the establishment, Tea Party, and conservatives has made the propositions a difficult decision. As a voter it is important to not only view the recommendations by various groups, but to understand what the text of the propositions mean. . .
Here is my take on them:
Prop. 30 [NO] - Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Constitutional Amendment: This proposition will raise State Sales taxes to 7.5% (making California's the highest in the nation), and raises income tax on individuals making over $250,000 (soak the rich scheme, and making Calfornia's the highest in the nation). When it comes to government, there is no such thing as temporary taxation. Though this proposition indicates the sales tax would only be for four years, and the income tax for seven years, at the time of expiration the Democrats will do the same thing they do in Washington - claim that the expiration will cost the government too much money, and call it a tax cut for the rich. As for the revenue being for education, the fine print in the proposition says that there is "no accountability on funds being directed to education." The money will more likely go to the very unpopular High Speed Rail project. The portion that changes the State Constitution eliminates State Funding for open meetings of local governments under the Ralph M. Brown Act, resulting in less local involvement at the State level, ushering in more closed door deals in Sacramento.
Prop. 31 [NO] - This is an attempt to eliminate Proposition 13, while ushering in the United Nations' Agenda 21. The 2/3 majority to raise taxes would be eliminated, while also eliminating a number of characteristics that makes this State a republic. Passage of Proposition 31 would result in less protections against government liberals, prop up mob-rule, and raise property taxes to ungodly levels.
Prop. 32 [YES] - At first I thought this might hurt the ability of campaigns to raise the necessary funds to run properly. I ran for office a couple years ago, and I know how expensive it can be. However, with the stranglehold the unions have on California, this is a necessary reform that checks the unions' unethical practices, while also guarding against money-for-favors contributions by corporations. Proposition 32 specifically restricts unions and corporations from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes.
Prop. 33 [NO] - Republicans are split on this proposition. The United Republicans of California urge a NO vote, the California Republican Assembly is neutral, and the California Republican Women's Federated are calling for a YES vote. This proposition is similar to Prop. 14 from 2010 which was defeated, and will deregulate the auto insurance industry, if passed, allowing prices to be based on a driver's history, and removing regulations that limit the industry. Normally, I support deregulation, because I believe the free market should prevail. However, automobile insurance is not your normal industry. In California, we are required to have auto insurance, so if the regulations put into place to protect consumers are removed, the insurance companies can collude together to make insurance more expensive. You won't have a choice. The law prohibits you from telling the insurance companies to take a hike. You have to buy the product. In the long run, though they claim the opposite, Proposition 33 will result in higher premiums.
Prop. 34 [NO] - If this proposition is passed, it will eliminated the death penalty in California, enabling life sentences without the possibility of parole instead. The death penalty is a deterrent, and to eliminate the death penalty is to encourage more violent crime.
Prop. 35 [NO] - This proposition claims to be about imposing human trafficking penalties, but it broadens the definitions, placing the label of "sex offender" on more people that may not necessarily deserve it, and allows the government to confiscate assets to the benefit of law-enforcement agencies, non-profits, and the like. The intent of the law seems reasonable, but the implications are dangerous, giving the government powers that we may later realize was not a good idea.
Prop. 36 [NO] - Though Proposition 36 keeps the very successful three strikes law intact, it adds to the 3 Strikes quiver "firearms possession." This is an attempt to further erode the right to keep and bear arms. In California we already have counties arresting people for firearm possession outside of their home, even if they have a concealed-carry permit, simply because the permit was issued in a different county. In those cases, this proposition would also include such an "infraction" as a part of the three strike law. In fact, this proposition would place a person behind bars even if the third strike was not a felony conviction.
Prop. 37 [NO] - This has been a difficult one for me to decide on. I recognize the dangers of genetically modified foods, and I do think that we should be made aware which foods are GMO, and which are not. However, the negative fiscal impact of this law on producers, the lawsuits it opens up, and the very fact that it is going to give government the ability to force companies to do something that could be very costly and push producers out of the State, concerns me. I believe foods should be labeled, but that the effort to do so ought to be through a grassroots effort. One way to accomplish the same would be for non-GMO food producers to label their foods as non-GMO, and if the consumer sees no such labeling, it would be safe to assume the food not labeled as non-GMO is genetically modified. Groups could also produce guides and packets. If you want something done, sometimes it is better to do it through private channels, not necessarily through government mandates.
Prop. 38 [NO] - A tax increase designed to provide for our children's education. As with 30, there is no accountability, and this is just another scheme to put more tax dollars into government coffers for general use.
Prop. 39 [NO] - A tax increase against multi-state businesses, for clean energy funding. California is hostile to businesses, and these companies are leaving California in droves. Now, with this tax increase, the liberal left is trying to drive multi-state businesses out of California, as well. The claim is the money will go into much needed green technology, but we've seen what happens when you try to force green energy on the people through government funding that plays favorites - it fails. This proposition will not create a new green technology industry, and it will not create jobs. The problem in California regarding jobs is not whether or not we have green technology, but because of the hostile environment towards businesses this State has become - Proposition 39 simply makes California more hostile against businesses than we already are.
Prop. 40 [YES] - A tough one to decide upon. A YES vote protects the new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, a NO vote rejects them. The new lines are not perfect, and there is still a lot of work to be done, but by voting NO on Proposition 40, we will hand the controls back into the hands of officials supervised by the California State Supreme Court. Simple question: Do you want citizen groups drawing the lines? Or politically motivated officials?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A large number of proposition are on this election's California ballot. Some of them have Republicans at odds with each other. The battle between the establishment, Tea Party, and conservatives has made the propositions a difficult decision. As a voter it is important to not only view the recommendations by various groups, but to understand what the text of the propositions mean. . .
Here is my take on them:
Prop. 30 [NO] - Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Constitutional Amendment: This proposition will raise State Sales taxes to 7.5% (making California's the highest in the nation), and raises income tax on individuals making over $250,000 (soak the rich scheme, and making Calfornia's the highest in the nation). When it comes to government, there is no such thing as temporary taxation. Though this proposition indicates the sales tax would only be for four years, and the income tax for seven years, at the time of expiration the Democrats will do the same thing they do in Washington - claim that the expiration will cost the government too much money, and call it a tax cut for the rich. As for the revenue being for education, the fine print in the proposition says that there is "no accountability on funds being directed to education." The money will more likely go to the very unpopular High Speed Rail project. The portion that changes the State Constitution eliminates State Funding for open meetings of local governments under the Ralph M. Brown Act, resulting in less local involvement at the State level, ushering in more closed door deals in Sacramento.
Prop. 31 [NO] - This is an attempt to eliminate Proposition 13, while ushering in the United Nations' Agenda 21. The 2/3 majority to raise taxes would be eliminated, while also eliminating a number of characteristics that makes this State a republic. Passage of Proposition 31 would result in less protections against government liberals, prop up mob-rule, and raise property taxes to ungodly levels.
Prop. 32 [YES] - At first I thought this might hurt the ability of campaigns to raise the necessary funds to run properly. I ran for office a couple years ago, and I know how expensive it can be. However, with the stranglehold the unions have on California, this is a necessary reform that checks the unions' unethical practices, while also guarding against money-for-favors contributions by corporations. Proposition 32 specifically restricts unions and corporations from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes.
Prop. 33 [NO] - Republicans are split on this proposition. The United Republicans of California urge a NO vote, the California Republican Assembly is neutral, and the California Republican Women's Federated are calling for a YES vote. This proposition is similar to Prop. 14 from 2010 which was defeated, and will deregulate the auto insurance industry, if passed, allowing prices to be based on a driver's history, and removing regulations that limit the industry. Normally, I support deregulation, because I believe the free market should prevail. However, automobile insurance is not your normal industry. In California, we are required to have auto insurance, so if the regulations put into place to protect consumers are removed, the insurance companies can collude together to make insurance more expensive. You won't have a choice. The law prohibits you from telling the insurance companies to take a hike. You have to buy the product. In the long run, though they claim the opposite, Proposition 33 will result in higher premiums.
Prop. 34 [NO] - If this proposition is passed, it will eliminated the death penalty in California, enabling life sentences without the possibility of parole instead. The death penalty is a deterrent, and to eliminate the death penalty is to encourage more violent crime.
Prop. 35 [NO] - This proposition claims to be about imposing human trafficking penalties, but it broadens the definitions, placing the label of "sex offender" on more people that may not necessarily deserve it, and allows the government to confiscate assets to the benefit of law-enforcement agencies, non-profits, and the like. The intent of the law seems reasonable, but the implications are dangerous, giving the government powers that we may later realize was not a good idea.
Prop. 36 [NO] - Though Proposition 36 keeps the very successful three strikes law intact, it adds to the 3 Strikes quiver "firearms possession." This is an attempt to further erode the right to keep and bear arms. In California we already have counties arresting people for firearm possession outside of their home, even if they have a concealed-carry permit, simply because the permit was issued in a different county. In those cases, this proposition would also include such an "infraction" as a part of the three strike law. In fact, this proposition would place a person behind bars even if the third strike was not a felony conviction.
Prop. 37 [NO] - This has been a difficult one for me to decide on. I recognize the dangers of genetically modified foods, and I do think that we should be made aware which foods are GMO, and which are not. However, the negative fiscal impact of this law on producers, the lawsuits it opens up, and the very fact that it is going to give government the ability to force companies to do something that could be very costly and push producers out of the State, concerns me. I believe foods should be labeled, but that the effort to do so ought to be through a grassroots effort. One way to accomplish the same would be for non-GMO food producers to label their foods as non-GMO, and if the consumer sees no such labeling, it would be safe to assume the food not labeled as non-GMO is genetically modified. Groups could also produce guides and packets. If you want something done, sometimes it is better to do it through private channels, not necessarily through government mandates.
Prop. 38 [NO] - A tax increase designed to provide for our children's education. As with 30, there is no accountability, and this is just another scheme to put more tax dollars into government coffers for general use.
Prop. 39 [NO] - A tax increase against multi-state businesses, for clean energy funding. California is hostile to businesses, and these companies are leaving California in droves. Now, with this tax increase, the liberal left is trying to drive multi-state businesses out of California, as well. The claim is the money will go into much needed green technology, but we've seen what happens when you try to force green energy on the people through government funding that plays favorites - it fails. This proposition will not create a new green technology industry, and it will not create jobs. The problem in California regarding jobs is not whether or not we have green technology, but because of the hostile environment towards businesses this State has become - Proposition 39 simply makes California more hostile against businesses than we already are.
Prop. 40 [YES] - A tough one to decide upon. A YES vote protects the new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, a NO vote rejects them. The new lines are not perfect, and there is still a lot of work to be done, but by voting NO on Proposition 40, we will hand the controls back into the hands of officials supervised by the California State Supreme Court. Simple question: Do you want citizen groups drawing the lines? Or politically motivated officials?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Liberal Fraud at Planned Parenthood Exposed
Whistleblower Cases Show Planned Parenthood Engages in Massive Fraud
Planned Parenthood insists it is a necessary and trusted healthcare provider that must be supported by taxpayer dollars. Recently unsealed “whistleblower” lawsuits tell a starkly different story. Former Planned Parenthood employees allege improper and illegal corporate policies were implemented by Planned Parenthood to increase profits, to the detriment of both the taxpayers and the women and families government programs seek to serve.
In the most recently unsealed suit, Thayer v. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Sue Thayer, former manager for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH), alleges that PPH filed nearly one-half million false claims with Medicaid. According to Ms. Thayer’s complaint, PPH fraudulently received and retained nearly $28 million in taxpayer funding through abusive billing practices.
Ms. Thayer alleges that to enhance revenues, PPH implemented a “C-Mail” program that effectively mailed thousands of unrequested birth control pills to women, and then billed the government for these pills. According to her complaint, PPH also solicited funds from patients for services fully covered by government programs while continuing to bill the government program for full reimbursement.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Oil Chief Assassinated in Europe
One must ask: Could this be linked with the anti-oil sentiment being pushed by the liberal left?
Exclusive: Nicholas Mockford, a British executive for the oil company ExxonMobil has been shot dead in front of his wife in an assassination-style killing in Brussels.
Belgian police have imposed a news blackout after Nicholas Mockford, 60, was shot as he left an Italian restaurant in Neder-over-Heembeek, a suburb of the capital.
The executive was shot three times, once as he lay on the ground, after leaving the Da Marcello restaurant in Rue de Beyseghem at around 10pm on Oct 14.
His wife, Mary, was left beaten and covered in blood. Mr Mockford died on the way to hospital.
Witnesses said they saw the couple walk across the street to their car, a silver Lexus 4x4, before shots were fired.
The attack was said to have happened very quickly and Mrs Mockford was left cradling her husband in the street, shouting for help. According to reports, two men were seen running away carrying a motorcycle helmet.
Belgian police have imposed a news blackout after Nicholas Mockford, 60, was shot as he left an Italian restaurant in Neder-over-Heembeek, a suburb of the capital.
The executive was shot three times, once as he lay on the ground, after leaving the Da Marcello restaurant in Rue de Beyseghem at around 10pm on Oct 14.
His wife, Mary, was left beaten and covered in blood. Mr Mockford died on the way to hospital.
Witnesses said they saw the couple walk across the street to their car, a silver Lexus 4x4, before shots were fired.
The attack was said to have happened very quickly and Mrs Mockford was left cradling her husband in the street, shouting for help. According to reports, two men were seen running away carrying a motorcycle helmet.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, October 27, 2012
2012 Election Map Prediction - Political Pistachio
Romney Landslide. . .
This Electoral Map is based on my research of the polls, taking into consideration the bias that includes an over-sampling of democrats, and an under-sampling of independents, and of local polls in each State that often are closer to reality than the national polls. Though I believe the polls are manipulated and skewed, they are an important tool to work with, along with census information, and trends. Below, I provide information on some of the States that will be very close:
Oregon - George W. Bush almost won Oregon in 2000 and 2004. Most surveys have Obama up only by a few percentage points in Oregon. In fact, in 2000, Gore won Oregon by less than a percentage point. The Oregonian newspaper reports that though Obama still holds a five percent lead in Oregon according to their polls (some polls show a 4% lead for Obama), undecided voters lean towards Romney. It may be by only a few thousand votes, but I think Oregon will go to Romney. Benghazi may have been the final straw that pushes Romney into the win column in that Left Coast state.
Wisconsin - Rasumussen Reports has the race at a dead even 49%-49%. The popularity of Republican Governor Scott Walker, and the fact that Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan is Romney's running mate, pushes Wisconsin into the GOP column. CBS News reports that Obama, over the last two weeks, has lost an eleven point lead in Wisconsin, and both the Gallup Poll, and CBS News Poll, has the race at a dead heat.
Minnesota - The Romney Campaign believes Minnesota is in play, and has shown that by bringing a heavy ad campaign to the State. ABC News reports that the Romney Campaign has bought $30,000 worth of ads in Minneapolis-St. Paul. The most recent polling data has Obama ahead in the State by only 2-4 points. Though Minnesota is traditionally a Democrat-leaning State, and no Republican has won the State since Nixon in 1972, George W. Bush came within 2.4 percentage points of winning there in 2000 and within 3.5 points of taking it in 2004. Former Minnesota Governor Pawlenty throwing his support behind Romney has helped the campaign. The primary key for me deciding that Minnesota will go to Romney is not the fact that everything is close, however, but the fact that in 2010 the GOP won control of both houses of the State Legislature and unseated the state's longest-serving Democratic congressman, Jim Oberstar. The Tea Party wave that caused the 2010 landslide is still in place, and if anything, the people are even more angry with Obama and the Democrats. The fervor that changed Minnesota in St. Paul will now spill over into the presidential election.
Michigan - Due to the failure of liberal policies in Michigan the State lost a seat in the House of Representatives as a result of the mass exodus from the State. Detroit is a shell of its prior self. The rural areas have gained strength in voting power, and as a result, Michigan is a tight race for the presidency, and in fact is now dead even. Like in Minnesota, Michigan saw a GOP win in 2010, including the election of Republican Rick Snyder as governor. That rejection of the Democrats will carry into 2012.
Ohio - The Buckeye State is a key State each election. Ohio historically picks the President. Since 1944 Ohio has sided with the losing candidate only once. Like Michigan, Ohio has been losing population, with the declines primarily affecting the cities. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Youngstown, Dayton and Akron all suffered huge population declines from 2000 to 2010. The mass exodus has reduced the population in the nearby suburbs, as well, giving Ohio a more rural outlook. Ohio lost two congressional seats as a result of the 2010 census. Polls currently have Ohio as a tie between Romney and Obama. Representative Jim Jordan has proclaimed Ohio is a win for Romney - Obama's record is a record of failure, and Ohioans recognize that. Some polls even have Ohio leaning towards Romney now.
Maine - A deeply blue State, Mitt Romney has little chance of winning the entire State of Maine. The northeastern State, however, is one of two States that splits its electoral college vote by congressional district. According to the polls, Mitt Romney is leading President Obama in the rural northern and western district, raising the possibility of the GOP nominee winning an electoral vote from Maine. Though Obama is leading statewide 48% to 44%, in Maine's second congressional district, Romney actually tops Obama 49% to 44%.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This Electoral Map is based on my research of the polls, taking into consideration the bias that includes an over-sampling of democrats, and an under-sampling of independents, and of local polls in each State that often are closer to reality than the national polls. Though I believe the polls are manipulated and skewed, they are an important tool to work with, along with census information, and trends. Below, I provide information on some of the States that will be very close:
Oregon - George W. Bush almost won Oregon in 2000 and 2004. Most surveys have Obama up only by a few percentage points in Oregon. In fact, in 2000, Gore won Oregon by less than a percentage point. The Oregonian newspaper reports that though Obama still holds a five percent lead in Oregon according to their polls (some polls show a 4% lead for Obama), undecided voters lean towards Romney. It may be by only a few thousand votes, but I think Oregon will go to Romney. Benghazi may have been the final straw that pushes Romney into the win column in that Left Coast state.
Wisconsin - Rasumussen Reports has the race at a dead even 49%-49%. The popularity of Republican Governor Scott Walker, and the fact that Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan is Romney's running mate, pushes Wisconsin into the GOP column. CBS News reports that Obama, over the last two weeks, has lost an eleven point lead in Wisconsin, and both the Gallup Poll, and CBS News Poll, has the race at a dead heat.
Minnesota - The Romney Campaign believes Minnesota is in play, and has shown that by bringing a heavy ad campaign to the State. ABC News reports that the Romney Campaign has bought $30,000 worth of ads in Minneapolis-St. Paul. The most recent polling data has Obama ahead in the State by only 2-4 points. Though Minnesota is traditionally a Democrat-leaning State, and no Republican has won the State since Nixon in 1972, George W. Bush came within 2.4 percentage points of winning there in 2000 and within 3.5 points of taking it in 2004. Former Minnesota Governor Pawlenty throwing his support behind Romney has helped the campaign. The primary key for me deciding that Minnesota will go to Romney is not the fact that everything is close, however, but the fact that in 2010 the GOP won control of both houses of the State Legislature and unseated the state's longest-serving Democratic congressman, Jim Oberstar. The Tea Party wave that caused the 2010 landslide is still in place, and if anything, the people are even more angry with Obama and the Democrats. The fervor that changed Minnesota in St. Paul will now spill over into the presidential election.
Michigan - Due to the failure of liberal policies in Michigan the State lost a seat in the House of Representatives as a result of the mass exodus from the State. Detroit is a shell of its prior self. The rural areas have gained strength in voting power, and as a result, Michigan is a tight race for the presidency, and in fact is now dead even. Like in Minnesota, Michigan saw a GOP win in 2010, including the election of Republican Rick Snyder as governor. That rejection of the Democrats will carry into 2012.
Ohio - The Buckeye State is a key State each election. Ohio historically picks the President. Since 1944 Ohio has sided with the losing candidate only once. Like Michigan, Ohio has been losing population, with the declines primarily affecting the cities. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Youngstown, Dayton and Akron all suffered huge population declines from 2000 to 2010. The mass exodus has reduced the population in the nearby suburbs, as well, giving Ohio a more rural outlook. Ohio lost two congressional seats as a result of the 2010 census. Polls currently have Ohio as a tie between Romney and Obama. Representative Jim Jordan has proclaimed Ohio is a win for Romney - Obama's record is a record of failure, and Ohioans recognize that. Some polls even have Ohio leaning towards Romney now.
Maine - A deeply blue State, Mitt Romney has little chance of winning the entire State of Maine. The northeastern State, however, is one of two States that splits its electoral college vote by congressional district. According to the polls, Mitt Romney is leading President Obama in the rural northern and western district, raising the possibility of the GOP nominee winning an electoral vote from Maine. Though Obama is leading statewide 48% to 44%, in Maine's second congressional district, Romney actually tops Obama 49% to 44%.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's Green Technology Corruption: Emails Point To White House Involvement Regarding Bankrupt About Solar
Emails suggest White House involvement in loan to bankrupt Abound Solar
Just one day after President Barack Obama went on television saying that politics had nothing to do with the now bankrupt Abound Solar receiving a taxpayer-backed loan guarantee from the Energy Department, emails have surfaced that appear to contradict his claim.
“And these are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics,” President Obama told KUSA’s Kyle Clark.
However, emails obtained by COMPLETECOLORADO.COM suggest that the White House was involved in the Energy Department’s decision to award Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee.
The emails also indicate that the loan guarantee was political payback to Democratic benefactor Pat Stryker.
Read more at the Daily Caller
Read more at the Daily Caller
Hurricane Sandy Becoming a Superstorm
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The headlines tell the story as Hurricane Sandy bears down on the American East Coast:
5 Reasons Sandy will be Epic - The Weather Channel
Hurricane Sandy Strengthens and Heads to Northeast - NYTimes
Meteorologist: Storm Could be Bigger than Worst East Coast Storm on Record that Killed 800 - CBS DC
New York City Mayor Bloomberg: A decision on mass transit closing expected early Sunday afternoon - broadcast
Bloomberg: The beaches are dangerous, and surfing is extremely dangerous. No surfing tomorrow, please - @NYNJSurf
ALERT: Gov. Christie suspends tolls on northbound Garden State Parkway and westbound Atlantic City Expressway starting at 6 a.m. Sunday
All Fire Island, New York, residents ordered to evacuate by 2p ET Sunday - @SteveKopack
Delaware governor orders mandatory evacuation of coastal areas at 8pm throughout the state - @GovernorMarkell
@NBCConnecticut tweeted: #Breaking: Fairfield issues Mandatory Evacuation for beach area beginning at noon on Sunday #Sandy
@NBCPhiladelphia tweeted: #BREAKING: State of Emergency Declared in Wilmington, Del http://t.co/EzxjS9xt #Sandy
Mayor declares state of emergency for Baltimore, Maryland - @ABC2NEWS
Sandy forces Romney to cancel Sunday afternoon campaigning in Va. after previously canceling evening events -@CBSNews
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick declares state of emergency ahead of Hurricane Sandy - @cbsboston
NJ Gov. Christie: Tolls to be waived on AC Expressway starting tomorrow at 6am to help with evacuations - @NBCPhiladelphia
Connecticut Gov Malloy: We have 350 National Guardsman, will increase to 400 to assist in recovery - @NBCConnecticut
Live video: Connecticut Gov. Malloy's briefing on Hurricane Sandy http://cour.at/vvBzMo - @hartfordcourant
Voluntary evacuations issued for Pamlico County, North Carolina, due to possible storm surge - @WITN
Mandatory evacuations of Atlantic City, New Jersey, casinos to begin on Sunday - @AP
Experts: Sandy wider, stronger than Irene, which caused $15B in damage in 2011 - @AP
The headlines tell the story as Hurricane Sandy bears down on the American East Coast:
5 Reasons Sandy will be Epic - The Weather Channel
Hurricane Sandy Strengthens and Heads to Northeast - NYTimes
Meteorologist: Storm Could be Bigger than Worst East Coast Storm on Record that Killed 800 - CBS DC
Bloomberg: The beaches are dangerous, and surfing is extremely dangerous. No surfing tomorrow, please - @NYNJSurf
ALERT: Gov. Christie suspends tolls on northbound Garden State Parkway and westbound Atlantic City Expressway starting at 6 a.m. Sunday
All Fire Island, New York, residents ordered to evacuate by 2p ET Sunday - @SteveKopack
Delaware governor orders mandatory evacuation of coastal areas at 8pm throughout the state - @GovernorMarkell
@NBCConnecticut tweeted: #Breaking: Fairfield issues Mandatory Evacuation for beach area beginning at noon on Sunday #Sandy
@NBCPhiladelphia tweeted: #BREAKING: State of Emergency Declared in Wilmington, Del http://t.co/EzxjS9xt #Sandy
Mayor declares state of emergency for Baltimore, Maryland - @ABC2NEWS
Sandy forces Romney to cancel Sunday afternoon campaigning in Va. after previously canceling evening events -@CBSNews
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick declares state of emergency ahead of Hurricane Sandy - @cbsboston
NJ Gov. Christie: Tolls to be waived on AC Expressway starting tomorrow at 6am to help with evacuations - @NBCPhiladelphia
Connecticut Gov Malloy: We have 350 National Guardsman, will increase to 400 to assist in recovery - @NBCConnecticut
Live video: Connecticut Gov. Malloy's briefing on Hurricane Sandy http://cour.at/vvBzMo - @hartfordcourant
Voluntary evacuations issued for Pamlico County, North Carolina, due to possible storm surge - @WITN
Mandatory evacuations of Atlantic City, New Jersey, casinos to begin on Sunday - @AP
Experts: Sandy wider, stronger than Irene, which caused $15B in damage in 2011 - @AP
We will continue to watch this story. . .
Is this the crisis the Obama administration has been waiting for?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Constitution Radio: Benghazi Explained - James E. Horn on the White House Cover-Up, and the Innocence of Muslims Video
James E. Horn is an expert on Islam, and a retired diplomatic agent. We will ask him about Benghazi, the filmmaker of The Innocence of Muslims (of whom he is acquainted), Charles Woods' statement "Who made the decision not to save my son?", and the unfolding details of the purposeful cover-up by the Obama administration regarding this horrific attack against American citizens on American soil, and how the White House refused to protect American lives.
Listen live to Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs at 2:05 pm Pacific on KCAA 1050 AM (KCAAradio.com) for this explosive interview.
After the interview, the Prying1Books Book of the Week, and the Constitution Quest Question of the Week, stay with us for the. . .
5 Big Stories of the Week, October 27, 2012
5. Liberal Democrat George McGovern Dies at age 90
4. Iran Explosives Testing Consistent with Nuclear Bomb Development
3. Russia Tests Nuclear Arsenal. . . (remember when Obama chided Romney for saying Russia is our greatest threat?)
2. Benghazi Cover-Up: Evidence Keeps Mounting - “Who made the decision not to save my son?”
1. Romney versus Obama, the third debate: Romney’s Debate Strategy Targets
if you missed today's episode, an archive copy is available on our podcast page
Friday, October 26, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Constitution Class in Temecula - The Preamble
Join us tonight at 6:00 pm at Faith Armory gun shop on Enterprise Circle West.
-2- A New Government
2.1 - The Preamble
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Preamble is the introduction of the U.S. Constitution. The opening paragraph of the founding document holds no legal authority. The Preamble serves to establish who is granting the authority to create a new federal government, and the reasons for the decision. We The People of the United States are the grantors. In other words, the States, which were the embodiment of the people, were creating the federal government, and granting authorities to it so that it may function in a manner necessary to protect, promote, and preserve the union of States. The concept became known as federalism.
The Preamble is designed much like a form the doctor’s office may present to you to sign, giving the doctor the authority to perform necessary procedures on you in order to make you well. The form begins with your name (I, patient’s name), and then limits the doctor to only the procedures necessary to make you well. The doctor, if he or she believes that additional procedures may be necessary, must ask you before performing the additional procedures that are not granted by your original agreement with him/her.
Like the form in the doctor’s office, the Preamble begins with who is granting the authorities. “We The People of the United States” are the grantors of the authorities given to the new federal government.
The words “United States” appear often in the U.S. Constitution. When those words appear in the text of the Constitution, they mean one of two things. Either, “United States” is a reference to the new federal government, or means “these states that are united.” In the case of the Preamble, both definitions are used.
The first instance in which “United States” appears in the Constitution is in the Preamble. The beginning of the Preamble reads: “We the people of the United States” - meaning: The people of the states that are united. As we learned in Section 1, the early Americans saw the United States in the plural, rather than as a singular nationalistic entity. The people were citizens of their states first, but realized that the states must be united to survive as a union. So, the people in the states that united decided to do so for the purpose of survival. The individual states would only be safe if they all worked together as a united country. To ensure the union was protected they proposed forming a central government through a contract called the United States Constitution. This contract, or agreement to grant limited authorities to a federal government, was designed to ensure that the federal government remained limited so as to not infringe on the individual rights of the sovereign states, and the people who resided in those states.
The granting of authorities to the new federal government was a decision made for a number of reasons, and as was customary of the founders, the reasons for forming the federal government are listed in order of importance in The Preamble. The reasons for forming a new government were “In Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
The most important reason for the formation of the federal government, the main purpose for the creation of the U.S. Constitution, was “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” A union already existed under the Articles of Confederation. A confederation, however, is a weak form of government. A confederation is an association of sovereign member states that, by treaty or other agreement, have delegated some of their powers to a common institution in order to coordinate policies, without constituting a new state on top of the member states. The government under the Articles of Confederation, however, proved to be too weak to protect the union. Therefore, the founders realized that they needed to form a more perfect union, one with more authorities, while still remaining fairly limited in its power and scope.
As you read the Constitution, you will notice that all of the authorities granted to the federal government are limited to the protecting, preserving, or promoting the union. The federal government was granted the authority to maintain an army and navy in order to protect the union from invasion, to collect taxes in order to pay for that military and the other necessary functions for preserving the union, to regulate commerce by acting as a mediator between the States so that the flow of commerce flows regularly in order to encourage a growing economy for the union, establish a uniform rule of naturalization for the purpose of ensuring the union grows through legal immigration, to establish post offices so that the parts of the union can remain in contact, and so on and so forth. The federal government was created for the sake of the union.
The second reason listed in The Preamble for the creation of the federal government through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was to “establish Justice.” Note that the word “establish” indicates that there was no justice prior to the writing of the founding document. However, we are well aware that justice did already exist in each of the States. Therefore, it is apparent that the U.S. Constitution was not written to establish justice in the States, but to establish justice at the federal level where a judicial system had not previously existed. Once again, language has provided for us a clue to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. One must also remember that during the debates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there was actually a consideration to not establish a federal court system. The delegates realized that tyranny more easily flowed through an activist judiciary. The rule of law could be easily compromised by a judicial branch not willing to abide by the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. For this reason, the powers of the judicial branch are greatly limited by the Constitution. We will go into more detail regarding those limitations when we get to Article III, and the 11th Amendment.
The first two reasons for the writing of the U.S. Constitution, according to the Preamble, was to form a more perfect union through the formation of a federal government, and to establish justice by creating a federal judicial system. It seems reasonable to assume, based on those primary goals, that the Constitution was not written to grant powers to the States (for the states already held all of the authorities for governance), but for the purpose of creating, yet limiting, a newly formed federal government, which was designed to serve the states by protecting them, and preserving the union they enjoyed. Before the States delegated some of their own powers to the federal government through the Constitution, those powers belonged to the States. The States, however, only granted “some” of their powers to the federal government, retaining most of the powers for themselves.
The U.S. Constitution, and all language within the document, is directed to the federal government, not to the States, unless specifically indicated otherwise. This is because the States essentially “hired” the federal government to protect and preserve the union. The contract that authorizes the federal government to exist and receive the authorities from the States is the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, it would be foolish to assume that the provisions of the Constitution are to be applied to the States as much as it is foolish to believe that an agreement between you and your doctor tells you what you can and can’t do regarding the procedures that are about to be performed on you. The agreement with the doctor is specifically designed to tell the doctor what procedures are allowed, just as the Constitution is specifically designed to tell the federal government what authorities it is allowed to have in order to protect, preserve, and promote the union.
Since it is We The People of the United States that granted the federal government its powers, that means it is the people’s, through the States, responsibility to ensure the federal government acts in a constitutional manner.
The union, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, was fragile. The States, as colonies, or as states shortly after the American Revolution, never got along too well. They had their own cultures, religions, and laws. They fought over turf, commerce, and anything else you could think of. The States were much like siblings, fighting over everything under the sun; but when it came down to brass tacks, they were united when it came to defending each other.
The bickering between the States created an atmosphere that placed the cohesion of the union at risk. Therefore, when it came to creating a more perfect union, it was understood that one of the tasks of the federal government would have to be to ensure the States got along, too. Hence, the reason for the Preamble also indicating that the Constitution was written to “insure domestic Tranquility” and to “promote the general Welfare.”
What those two phrases meant was that because the States didn’t seem to get along too well, the federal government was expected to ensure there was tranquility between the States by acting as a mediator in disputes. Part of that task by the federal government was to also promote the general welfare of the republic. In other words, make sure the squabbles did not place the welfare of the union in jeopardy.
If the founders meant for the federal government to create a nanny state of entitlement programs with the term “General Welfare,” not only would they have then created a system of that sort back then, but they would also have changed the wording to read “individual welfare.” Of course we must remember that The Preamble holds no legal authority, so the actual General Welfare Clause that has caused so much debate is actually located in Article I, Section 8.
General Welfare, as it is presented in the Preamble, is capitalized in a curious manner. Welfare is capitalized, but the word “general” is not. Capitalization in the Constitution was often for the purpose of emphasis. With that tendency as our guide, it is reasonable to see that “Welfare” was the key component when these two words were presented in the Preamble. The Founding Fathers were seeking “Welfare” with a capital “W.” But what kind of Welfare were they looking for? Anything specific? No. The founders tasked the federal government with the duty of ensuring there was Welfare in the nation in a general manner. Or, you could say that they wanted the atmosphere in general to be one of “Welfare,” or “all’s well.”
In The Preamble, tucked between “insure domestic Tranquility” and “promote the general Welfare” is the phrase: “provide for the common defence.” In other words, almost as important as ensuring peaceful cooperation between the States, and slightly more important than promoting the general Welfare of the republic (and perhaps a part of ensuring the general Welfare), was the duty of the federal government to provide protection for the union through a military.
The need to provide for the common defense, one may note, was not listed first in The Preamble as one of the reasons for the creation of the federal government. The Founding Fathers, though they recognized the importance of the federal government to field a military force, as realized from the failure of the government to put down insurrection during Shays’ Rebellion under the Articles of Confederation, did not list the need to provide for the common defense at the beginning of the Preamble because a country that places too much importance on a military is doomed to become a police state. Defending this nation was not placed at the bottom of the list either because a nation that refuses to defend itself ultimately becomes a conquered entity that is subject to the authority of a foreign government. Despite the fear of a powerful military that could be used against the people and the States, providing for the common defense was still indeed one of the primary reasons for creating the federal government in the first place. That is why “provide for the common defence” is listed in the Preamble within the depths of the body of the paragraph.
The final reason for the writing of the Constitution was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The presence of the word “Blessings” reminds us that the Founding Father’s grateful spirit recognized that the result of the American Revolution, and the inspiration for this new government, could have only come from the favors of Divine Providence. Liberty, remember, is one of the unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence that has been given to us by The Creator. In fact, that is one of the foundational beliefs of the original intent behind the creation of the federal government. Our rights are granted to us by God, not by government, for if our rights are granted to us by government, government could then take those rights away.
Sometimes, when I ask somebody what they believe to be the main reason for the writing of the U.S. Constitution, more often than not the response is, “To protect our rights, liberty, and property.”
That is actually an incorrect answer, as we have just discovered by studying The Preamble. Though protecting our rights, liberty, and property are among the reasons that the Constitution was written in the manner that it was, those are not the reasons for the creation of the founding document, and thus the reasons for the creation of the federal government.
As indicated in the Preamble, the primary reason for the Constitution is The Union. However, by creating a federal government, the Founding Fathers realized that they were opening up the potential for the governmental system to become a tyranny. Therefore, in order to protect the rights, liberty and property of the people (more specifically to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”), the federal government needed to be limited in its authorities by the rule of law. The law of the land in which the governmental system is limited to, in the case of the United States, is the U.S. Constitution.
Terms:
Federalism: Government in which the central government’s power and authority is limited by local government units, and where each unit is delegated a sphere of power and authority only it can exercise, while other powers must be shared. The term federalism comes from the Latin root foedus, which means "formal agreement or covenant." It includes the interrelationships between the states as well as between the states and the federal government.
Unalienable Rights: Incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Many of us were taught to memorize the Preamble in school, others remember it because of the School House Rock cartoon on Saturday mornings, but growing up how many times were we taught what it means?
2. Federalism, or the belief in a central government limited by the authorities granted to it in the Constitution, began as a wonderful idea. The “Federalist Party,” however, were not satisfied, and desired the federal government to have more authorities than it was granted. Why do you think this is true?
3. Why did the Founding Fathers only desire the federal government to be granted powers that regarded the union, and not authorities in regards to other issues?
4. The judicial branch was supposed to be the weakest of the three branches. Why do you think the Founding Fathers wanted to limit the judiciary to such an extent?
5. One of the founding principles is that our unalienable rights are given to us by the Creator. Is it a coincidence that historically most authoritarian governments that sought to take away the rights of the individual did it either by taking control of the church, or by rejecting religion/the existence of God?
6. At what point does a government take “provide for the common defense” too far?
Resources:
James L. Roark, Michael P. Johnson, Patricia Cline Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann, The American Promise: A History of the United States; Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s (2009).
James Madison, Federalist No. 41: General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).
Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution - Volume Two - Preamble through Article I, Section 8, Clause 4; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)