Destroying the Consititution - my states attempt

I have been asleep at the wheel and completely missed my states attempt at the destruction of the electoral college. Taking a look at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MD, I see that my state was the first to sign in to law that we have given away our electoral votes to whatever the rest of the country decides, based on popular vote in, in all presidential elections. There seems to be a good bit of support, by the un-informed, for this approach that the popular vote should trump electoral vote.

As Mark Levin articulated, this one man: one vote mentality is easy to sell but is completely misleading in its implementation. Because the populace does not understand the electoral college it is easy to disparage it. To understand why it is so critical requires the individual to actually do some research which is something that many seem either unwilling or incapable of doing. As Mark stated on his show on July 27, 2010, doing away with the Electoral college can only really be done with a constitutional amendment, but that is apparently too hard. However, states are permitted to give away their rights at any time.

If 'one man: one vote' is indeed the sole purpose for the support of this approach, then other changes should also be 'in the public interest'. To start, as Mark illustrated, we should abolish the United States Senate. After all, why should each state have the same number of representatives to a governing body if the states are of different sizes?

Perhaps we should really take the individual right and responsibility a number of steps further and consider all 310 million citizens as individual tax payers. With a $3.8 trillion budget, each citizen should be responsible for their 'fair share' of the budget. So, my family of 5 should be expected to pay $61,290. While I don't have the money at the moment - this will definitely cause me to become more active in the legislation that my government decides to pass. Is this practical - absolutely not. Am I honestly encouraging this - NO! However, it does put things in perspective .... doesn't it.

So, my apologies to my fellow Marylanders for not watching more closely. For the more populated states and regions around this once great country - PLEASE GET IT RIGHT. We need the popular vote more than ever to actually elect the right candidate and then my state will offer its votes when everything is said and done. Of course, I wouldn't put it past them to make changes to the law to match their political desires.

No wonder we are where we are

I am no genius when it comes to ... just about anything. With that disclaimer how hard is it to pass a U.S citizenship test? Personally, I found it to be a relatively simple test - take a look at the questions and see for yourself. Apparently, I am not a normal citizen of the country as 'elected officials' only scored 44 per cent. 'Ordinary' citizens scored 49 per cent. This information was taken from the article 'US officials flunk test of American history, economics, civics' . If the education, or awareness of our country is this abysmal - there is no question as to why we find ourselves continuing to elect officials that really have no idea what they are supposed to do, let alone become self declared experts on foreign policy, financial issues, health care or even the role of government.

Instead of electing people who understand the history of our country, its role in the world or even a strong discipline in an area that matters to the general population, we seem to elect people who will cater to a particular need or cause. Where does this get is .... Refer back to my previous post .

This most recent election brought to the forefront the concern over 'qualifications' to become President or Vice President. Personally, I think anyone wishing to run for office should be required to take the test, pass it with at least an 80% (that was a B in grade school) and their scores and answers published for all to see. Not that it will matter much as we are increasingly becoming a society of hand outs. That is the general population increasingly sits back and puts their hand out looking for what their elected official will give them.

Go back to my previous post on taxation and see where you fit. In the end, if you find yourself not wanting to pay for someone elses beer will you do something about it or just complain and threaten to move if your candidate doesn't win ... like Alec Baldwin promised to do.

MANDATE?

To follow up on my previous post ... I had to do a little looking, but remember very clearly the gubernatorial election of 2002 in the state of Maryland. Robert Ehrlich ran for office with a very definitive method of raising revenue though the use of slots. The entire election seemed to be focused on slots and what it would mean to the state. For or against slots - it really does not matter (I was against them then, and am against them now - more in a future post about state run gambling), he won handily. Now, the vote came down roughly 4 points above Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. 4% is not a huge margin, but in a lopsided state like Maryland (heavily democratic) when a Republican wins - you should be able to read MANDATE. This was not to be.

The press hounded Ehrlich and refused to acknowledge that his win, with slots as a key piece of his plan, was a statement on where the citizens wanted to see the country move. As soon as a Democrat was elected to the office of governor - the press immediately jumped on the slots bandwagon and have 'campaigned' for their passage. WHAT A CROCK!
So now, Barack Obama wins with about a 6% lead in the popular vote, the media are calling for complete change in every position the Bush administration has taken. I fear that change is all we are going to have left. Mr. Obama will be the president of the United States. The people have voted and the tranfer of power will occur. This is one of the things that makes this country great. Mandate should not be use in this case. If it is - I think it is time for the rest of the country to wake up and call for the other mandate that was voted in - Proposition 8 in California.

Prop 8 was voted for approval but immediately there were protests held ... If the people vote and the votes are meant to show the opinion of the people - why the protests? Why the media continuing to give credit to the opposition? The people spoke and the liberal media did not like what they said. Therefore, something needs to be done to get what they want - it really is that simple

Face it - the media is biased. It is time for the rest of us to stand up and call them on it.

Mandate? I don't think so

Now that the presidential election of 2008 is almost behind us the news media is headed off on their own again. 'The election of Barack Obama signifies a mandate for change.' - Where do they come up with this stuff. Yes, Mr. Obama won the election, but I don't think you can call less than 6% popular vote a mandate. Personally, I fear what this country has in store for it with the democratic controlled House, Senate and Oval Office - what we can't afford is a media that begs at their feet encouraging even more sweeping change.

Preparing for the 'unfiltered' Obama

I personally think the idea of buying up all of the air time so that a politician can 'sell' his message to the world is a great idea. I find it humorous that Mr. Obama is the one doing it. Why? Hasn't he had the time that he wanted without ever spending a dime already? With the main stream media taking the cues and input from his campaign and running with every positive story he thought important, what could he have possibly missed?

Apparently, he has not gotten his message out - so now he is taking a half hour spot on a number of networks to tell the world exactly what he wants us to hear. I will not be able to listen to it as I will be traveling home from a business trip - but I am sure it will be rebroadcast over and over again with his lap dogs carrying it to the finish line. While it is combative to bring it up - I thought McCain-Feingold had a provision that restricted air time as we edged closer to elections ... in an effort to stop what is about to happen. John McCain started working on this years ago because he saw what was possible.

Lastly, Mr. Obama appears to have more money than he could possibly know what to do with it. I wonder how that philosophy (raise as much as possible and make sure you spend all of it) will translate to a Obama presidency? The heir-apparent has already started campaigning to have people stay home from work and skip school to help 'make history'. This is not what this country needs and is 100% focused on Obama the individual instead of the citizen of this great country.