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.

What do you stand for ?

What do you stand for? I mean really stand for. In this politically divided time in which we live, have you taken a serious look at what you believe in, desire and will stand for? There are three primary groups within the United States {progressives, independents, and conservatives} that individuals identify themselves with. I can only really define my own beliefs and connect to the group that most closely relates those beliefs. I challenge you to do the same - be honest with yourself. If you can't be honest with yourself in the assessment - do me a favor and stop judging others, you have no leg to stand on.

Everyone that knows me understands that I like keeping things simple. Does this overlook certain aspects of a situation? Absolutely. However, if you can simplify things right - you can get by with the bulk of what is before you and have reasonably good insight to the ancillary information that you otherwise overlook. So, what about the three political groups? My simple definitions: Conservative - those that strive to protect or revert back to the principles that founded this country. Progressive - those that strive to change what is into something that differs from what is/ or was. Independent - those that are caught somewhere between the two; longing for some of what was but desiring something different.

The Constitution set forth a number of principles that over time have been changed. The men that created this document / blueprint did so based on on their life experiences and out of a belief that all men are fallible. To that end, limits were placed on what the governing body was authorized to do to the citizenry. Did they get everything right? No, but they did set forth a method for changing the laws when the failings were discovered. Somehow, the limits and methods for change appear to have been pushed to the side.

Unfortunately, we are now at a point that the Constitution is being shredded by the the failings of a few, overly aggressive legislators. Those legislators sit on both sides of the isle and mislead the rest of the government as well as the governed, those whom they have sworn an oath to protect and represent. At the time the Constitution was drafted and signed - a man's word was the representation of his life. His signature represented his beliefs for all of history to witness. Now, a signature or an oath's value is not worth the paper it is written on and is not meant to exist beyond the time it took to expel it from the individuals mouth. While I am most concerned with the misappropriations of the citizenry by their elected Congress, our President recently made a statement that I could not agree with more : "I think part of what our constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals have protection in their privacy, and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that" . How is it that the President of the United States can make a comment like this just a few short weeks after signing the abominibal health care act into law? The law violates the individuals right to privacy! The law violates the individuals bodily integrity! As I said - I agree with the words he used, I just can't agree with the actions he takes.

By way of example, I am a firm believer that the President's ability to appoint judges should not be inhibited. There should be a level of investigation done for all person's appointed to positions of trust but the use of the fillibuster should not be used. Not that it is un-constitutional, just out of respect for the office of the President. However, since there is no statute stating when/where a fillibuster should/should not be used - Congress should pass a law to govern their own actions in this area. Until then, perhaps a constant fillibuster should be used .... This type of common sense work will never happen in Washington, D.C. . Why? Simply because our Congress is not made up of a group of honest individuals.

Term limits for the legislator is the solution - but not by passing law. I am 100% opposed to a legislated limitation. Individuals need to exercise their right to vote and express their opinions to the elected. Do so by following the law, expressing your thoughts and feelings directly and respecting that others have those same rights.

As an individual, hold me to my word. As a citizen, hold me to the laws that have been put in place for me to follow. As a tax payer - keep the promises you made to me, respect the law that we are all governed by and if you want to change the law - do it the right way.

Proud to be an American. The price is worth it.

Tomorrow, January 20, is a day that makes me truly proud to be an American. No, this is not another gushing review of President-elect Barack Obama. No, this is not another notification to the world that we will swear in the first African-American President. No, the day marks one of the things that makes this country truly great. The peaceful transition of power from one elected official to the next - I could not be more proud of this legacy that our country leaves to the world.

If you have read any of my posts on the election you can see that I am no fan of our future President. I disagree with virtually everything he campaigned for on the basis of ideology alone - I make no judgement on the man himself as I do not know him. That being said - beginning tomorrow he will be my President and I will stand behind him, if called to do so. Elections have consequences but as a citizen of this country, I have a responsibility to support and defend her and that starts with support for our president. I have not been a big fan of the political leaders in our country over the past several years but as a citizen - I do support them. I also support the citizens of this country by voicing my opinion (even though I do not do it as often as I should).

President Bush will not go down as my favorite President but he will be remembered, by me, as a man of character and as a selfless man that did for the world what he believed he was called to do. Any person that stands on principle, regardless the cost, is a man worth remembering and modeling (atleast a small amount) in your own life.

I used to speak to high school kids about succeeding in life and one portion of the talk was about 'who is the most successful person you can think of'. The idea of the talk is to define success in your terms and not be trapped in to the traditional view of success. As the kids would throw out all the big names that you expect (Gates, James, Jordan, Manning, Woods) they would eventually start calling out parents, brothers, clergy .... The point of having them call out names was to prove that there is no one definition of success. President George W. Bush is one of those people that I would bring to their attention today. He is a man that, on principle, took on the world. Ridiculed at home. Despised around the world. He stood on principle that those with the ability to affect change, have the responsibility to do so. THANK YOU Mr. President for your service.

To our soon-to-be President. I wish you well and I offer you my support. I will stand and defend you and our country. I will support you both by defending and disagreeing with you. I only hope that others will do the same.

Experts? Who said they were experts?

There are no sour grapes in this post. The election is behind us and the next several years will show us what we just elected. My question, in light of the way the current congressman and women are acting, is who said we elected them to be experts? At anything? The way the 535 congressmen and senators have been acting seems to imply they were elected because of their brilliance and ability to manipulate, I mean manage, health care - financial markets - the automobile industry - energy .... When in fact the majority of them made it to Capitol Hill as lawyers.
I mean no disrespect to lawyers. How does a lawyer know what is best for the economy? How does a lawyer understand health care and what is right for the masses? Quite simple - THEY DON'T! Apparently winning an election is the first step in manipulating the future of the millions.
If this is not the case - please explain Nancy Pelosi to me, and she is one of the few non-lawyers on the hill. What background does she have to carry the influence that she wields? She has no background in health care, energy, manufacturing, finance (other than her own family wealth). In fact - her biography only lists that she graduated college. No specialty - no further study ... But she is directing how her party, and the rest of congress, should be taking on these issues that have huge implications for today and tomorrow. Not to complain to much about Pelosi, she is but an example of the 'I am in - now what can I change' gang known as the legislative branch of government.
I am 100% opposed to term limits as We, the people, should be smart enough to vote those out of office that do not represent us well. I am opposed to un-educated voters being allowed, often hand delivered, to vote. Differences are what makes us strong - so this is not about those that disagree with me being blocked from voting. I just believe that people caught up in the hype are not capable of rational thought. Without rational thought - how qualified are you to even vote?

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.

Are we reaching the tipping point?

For a long time (20 years or half of my life) I have been worried about the impending end of democracy. Yes, I know that is a bold statement but it is backed with a deep rooted concern over the direction I, and many others, have seen this great country going. It is human nature to reach for what is within your grasp, but the outright stealing of the resources of this democracy is something that is appalling to me. This is not a political statement - it is a statement of concern.

When groups are pitted against each other (socio-economic, religious, race based or political) in order to gain a majority favor - everyone loses. There is a line in the movie 'Miracle' that I truly wish more people in this country would consider. In an effort to get the U.S. Hockey team more focused on working as a team Herb Brooks, played by Kurt Russell, says something to the point of " it's about time you starting thinking more about the name on the front of your jersey, than the name on the back" . That line has stuck with me since I first heard it as a montra for our country. John F. Kennedy uttered something along the same lines that seems to have been lost as something from yesteryear, but could not hold more true today "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country".

Whether those asking are the homeless, homebound or homeowner. Factory worker or factory owner. Victim of malicious crime or perpetrator of that crime. Ask what you can do to make the world and this country a better place.

Along that line, there is another evil within our midst that has been subtle in its growth. That growth has found its way into our way of thinking could not be more wrong. Reading a book that my children are working with in school (elementary and middle school ) - I found it square in the middle of the text. There was a time when the United States of America was a melting pot. That melting pot welcomed every view - everyone was welcome and everyone was encouraged to bring their particular flavor to the pot. That pot would meld the disparate beliefs, customs, and heritage into something that was unique in the world - America. Now, we are told to welcome the same but not to encourage the blending. This creates, as my kids book illustrates, a tossed salad model. Each contributing to the overall flavor of the bi-product but without attempting to blend together. This is not America. This divides American's rather than uniting them.

Where do we go? Are we at a the tipping point? Is the end of the democratic republic close at hand? I just hope I am wrong in my conclusion of where we are in Tytler's Circle.

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.

Palin ready ... or not?

Perusing the news this afternoon while eating lunch the headline:

Ex-chief diplomat says Palin not ready for top job

jumped right out at me. What is interesting is that - if you read the article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081031/ap_on_el_pr/palin_eagleburger you find that he also states that he could name a number of Vice President's that he saw in the same situation. He states that given a little time in the job, he thinks she would be able to assume the Presidency if called upon to do so. So, don't read too much in to titles.

CatholicVote

A lesson on taxation

I was recently sent an email from a friend that I thought was simple enough that most people could understand. I have pasted it below verbatim:

UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS (OR) BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
• The fifth would pay $1
• The sixth would pay $3
• The seventh would pay $7
• The eighth would pay $12
• The ninth would pay $18
• The tenth man ( the richest) would pay $59

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for all of you will now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so:

The first four men were unaffected, they still pay nothing and will drink for free. The other six men -the paying customers had to decide how to divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share". They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then the fifth and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so,

• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving)
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
• The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings)
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 ( 16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20" declared the sixth man he pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10" "Yeah, that right" exclaimed the fifth man 'I only saved $1 dollar too" "It's unfair that he got ten times more than I" That's true! shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2".
"The wealthy get all the breaks!!!
" Wait a minute' yelled the first four men in unison "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the Poor" We didn't get anything at all" The nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them, for even half of the bill!!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction!! Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible-they will go ahead and vote for Obama.

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.

Where is the honesty?

Not that there are many of you out there reading my posts, but if you have read them you sense that I am rather annoyed with the media in the U.S. . Politics is a simple area to see how one-sided, skewed and self-promoting the media is in this country. There was a time, I have been told, that the media (print, radio, television) actually reported the news. They investigated all aspects of a story and provided that information for the world to consume.

That time is definitely either a dream, a point in history that has been passed by, or simply a creative thought that my parents shared with me as a child and I believed them. The news media, specifically print and television, is so focused on getting their story out there that they often create news instead of merely reporting it. Reading about Sarah Palin (you name the topic) it is very clear that a team of investigators took their charge to dig up information very seriously. This is something that the media should do. However they failed to do the same research on Joe Biden, Barack Obama and John McCain. Perhaps they think that everyone knows how much each of them spends on their wardrobes or how much money they have tied up in family business ....

That being said - it appears that they simply have a plan to report every negative aspect of the governors life in an effort to create/sway public opinion instead of simply reporting it. If they really were about informing the public they would have gone through the same level of investigation and speculation about Joe Biden. Something as simple as :"How can a United States Senator, for several years, be in a position to only be worth $63,000?". Talk about judgement - if he has nothing more that $63K saved after all those years living on the public dime, then how ready is he to be President? Balance a budget? Get us out of this economic crisis that he helped get us in to?

So, until the press decides to act as an unbiased observer and researcher - I will not recommend them for anything other than lining my daughter's rabbit cage and another reason to limit the amount of time my children watch television.

Tired of the future

How far have we come? Not very far if you ask me. What am I talking about? What ever happened to keeping your word? Standing up for what you believe in? Standing up for those that can't stand up for themselves?

When I was growing up, my parents along with their neighbors taught us to honor your word. Keep your commitments, respect each other and above all understand that you are part of something larger. With the current political situation in the United States it is obvious that the lessons of yesterday have been thrown out the window.

After watching the debates last night and listening to the morning after quarterbacks - either I did not watch the same debate, or I am living in an alternate universe. Neither candidate is clean in this election. They have both been a part of the failed economic decisions that have brought the financial crisis on the world. Yet, they both claim to have done something in the past that should have averted it. Mr. Obama - sending a letter to a chairman DOES NOTHING. If you really believed what you wrote a year and a half ago - why didn't you do something as senator? Mr. McCain - if the Republicans held congress when you signed on to the bill that went down in defeat - WHY COULDN'T YOU GET IT PASSED? Failure to lead is failure to act!

The facts are the facts. The corruption in Washington brought us to this point. Yes, greed on Wall Street played a part, but it is the underhanded actions of the Washington insiders that started this ball rolling. Once moving in a direction they wanted - they were all too willing to support whatever promoted their cause. Now, they want to place the blame on President Bush and anyone who ever voted in support of one of his policies. Well, I hate to break the news to you but for as many failures as the Bush administration has had you can't pile this crisis on them.

This started long ago with well-intentioned individuals trying to bring the American dream to those that were less fortunate. While admirable, it only goes to show the law of unintended consequences is alive and well. Lowering the barrier to home ownership is looking out for the little guy (or girl). Forcing institutions to make risky loans was the wrong approach to take. Now, piling on to those that were told to do it and found a way to make money in the process (which is the goal of business in the first place) is down right immoral.

Stand up for what you believe in! Work towards solutions that help everyone instead of pitting groups against each other! Take the blame for what you did ... or did not do! Honor your words and actions if you want us to support your future plans!