Mob-rule democracy versus a republic

i continue to see (supposedly) educated people seriously discuss revising the US republic into a one-person-one-vote semi-direct "democracy"... and they don't see the problem with this... it makes me want to choke some sense into people... but i'm afraid their brains aren't getting enough oxygen to begin with!

we have 50 states... that's why we're called the "United States" of America... our founders recognized that individual states will have differing needs and desires, so they are independent of each other, except where common needs overlap (such as interstate commerce).

so, let's examine the idea of what i call mob-rule democracy and compare it to what happens in our republic... first, we must understand population/demographics and the electoral college.

the population of each state determines the amount of "electors" in the electoral college... there are 538 electors... each state gets one for each Representative and one for each Senator, per Article II of the US Constitution... there are 435 Representatives, divided among the states based on population, but no less than one per state... there are 100 Senators, divided among the states equally (2 each)... there are an additional 3 electors representing the District of Columbia, as required by the 23rd Amendment.

as of 2013, the estimated population of the US is 316,128,839 people.

now, to get elected, you need 50%+1 of the electors, 270, to vote your way... due to current population trends, it takes only 11 states to get 270 electors... CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, & NJ.

that doesn't sound very "democratic", does it?... where 11 of 50 states, 22%, dictate to the other 39 states who will be the President of the United States... shouldn't it take 26 states (50%+1)?... wouldn't that be more "democratic"?

but there are people who want "one-person-one-vote" democracy, where it takes 50%+1 of the popular vote for presidential elections... that's their version of "fair"... but is it?... it would only take NINE states to elect the President... CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, & MI... 9 of 50 states, 18%, would then dictate to the other 41 states.

how is that "democratic"?

furthermore, some states have population centers which can easily override the rest of the state... in California, the Los Angeles - Long Beach - Anaheim area has around 12 million residents, fully one-third of the population of the state... New York City metro area has around 8 million, where the entire state has 19 million; nearly one half of the state in one area... Clark County in Nevada (home of Las Vegas) has a population of nearly 2 million, while the entire state has only 2.8 million!

by now, it should be obvious that "one-person-one-vote" is as un-democratic as possible... mob-rule is possibly the worst form of governance.

---

source:
Population of US States (plus Washington D.C.)
Distribution of Electoral Votes
Article II of the US Constitution
Map: California Home to Most Densely Populated Areas

"Take a seat" on democracy

Goodness gracious sakes alive, does this country need a history lesson! Never in the past four years have I wanted so badly to have a class of people to teach. Teenagers or adults or senior citizens — it wouldn’t have mattered. I have seen so much appalling ignorance about our country, its history and its constitution that I have just wanted to grab the populace and shake them until they understood.

For starters, I am tired of hearing about our democracy and the popular vote. We are not a democracy, and a whole lot of people should be really glad about that, too, because in a democracy, mob rule applies. The majority is the boss of everybody, and if we had been a democracy in 1865 slavery would have never been abolished. If we had been a democracy in 1920, the women would have never gotten the vote. If we had been a democracy in 1964 and 1965, those historic pieces of civil rights legislation would never have been approved. In fact, if we had been a democracy in 1776, the Declaration of Independence would never have been adopted because the majority of the colonists were afraid to pursue independence, just like a majority of Americans opposed women’s suffrage and abolition and sweeping civil rights reform.

For the record, Abraham Lincoln did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996.

“Oh, yes he did!” screamed one of my Facebook friends this week. “I know Lincoln got the most votes and so did Clinton.”

Most means plurality, y’all. A majority is 50 percent plus one. And while we are on the subject, we are not a democratic republic, either, no matter what the revisionist history books might claim. That’s just a term Andrew Jackson coined for political purposes in the 1820s and it stuck with some people. We are a republic. We have a federalist form of government where the power is supposed to be divided between the states and the central government and neither is subservient to the other. Both are supposed to get their powers directly from the people.

And by the way, the U.S. Constitution does not give any of us the right to have a say so in who becomes president of the United States. Oh, no, it doesn’t. That power is vested entirely in the Electoral College, and under the Constitution states still have the authority to decided how those electors are chosen. It wasn’t until 1842 that the last state started allowing the people to vote for those electors.

If we eliminated the Electoral College people in two-thirds of the states would be virtually disenfranchised when it came to presidential elections. All the time, money and effort would be spent wooing voters in California, New York and Florida.

Now about the transition of power. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution and were thought to be a dangerous thing by our founders. But parties arose almost immediately because people have always had differences of opinions about political issues. The first 12 years under the Constitution found the government in the hands of the Federalist Party. But in the election of 1800 — also called the Revolution of 1800 — Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republican Party, was chosen to be president. When John Adams, his Federalist opponent, stepped down on inauguration day in 1801, it marked the first time in the history of the world that a group in power had relinquished power without violence or threat of violence, simply because the people said that’s what they wanted. It has worked that way ever since.

And now the people have spoken and the message is loud and clear, under the Constitution, that the people want this country to go in a new direction. And no matter how much they hated to do so, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and President Obama did and said all the right things this week to propel us toward that smooth transition.

And yet in many of our nation’s cities, ignorant young people who have no knowledge of how this Republic is supposed to work are dying to get attention by marching in the streets and generally acting the fool — and, no, these are not the peaceful protests guaranteed by the First Amendment. You must have a grievance to protest. These are spoiled brats and attention-seekers and they should be ashamed.

And if you are interested, I have about 38 years worth of lessons stored up. Class can start as soon as everyone gets here.

---

source:
DARRELL HUCKABY: Take a seat — history class is in session | Opinion | newtoncitizen.com

Miss. the point

Mississippi lawyers and "legal scholars" responded to HB1523, the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act"... which is ironic in itself, as it was drafted by Mississippi lawyers and legal scholars... principally authored and introduced by Speaker of the House, Gunn; juris doctor from MS School of Law... co-sponsor Gipson; juris doctor from MS School of Law... but the fact that we are to take "legal scholars" opinions about this is simply an Appeal to Authority.

however, let's address the scholar's argument against:

We share the view of Justice Kennedy when he expressed that “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest,” and would add that neither can such a desire be justified in the name of religious liberty.

well let me retort with another Supreme Court Justice, referring to the same case [Romer v. Evans] as quoted by the above Justice Kennedy:

The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a "'bare ... desire to harm' " homosexuals, ante, at 634, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws.

do you see what he said?... it is an attempt by a religious community to protect their Constitutionally guaranteed right to practice their sincerely held beliefs and traditions against a "politically powerful" group which wish to revise their religious practices through the cudgel of law-fare... and that is what HB1523 is precisely trying to accomplish... now, we can argue as to the effectiveness of said law to accomplish that weighty task, however what we cannot deny is the concerted attempt by those outside of a religion to force their own mores onto the religion by use of legal pressure and threat of governmental intervention... if there was ever a greater threat to "Separation of Church and State", i surely don't know of one.

and these scholars are using a statement from a case [Romer v. Evans] which fought against discrimination of a "politically unpopular group", in that case the homosexuals... here, we have it turned upon it's head, where the "politically unpopular group" has become not the minority but an entire religion... and HB1523 is saying that "a bare desire to harm" someone who acts in a manner consistent with their religious practices should not "constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from favoring or disfavoring any particular religion or religion in general.

this statement flies in the face of what the legal scholars just said in their own previous statement... here we have numerous cases of the government disfavoring religion in general, yet when HB1523 attempts to remove itself from the fray, suddenly these legal scholars want the government to take sides again!

In Cutter v. Wilkinson, the Court upheld a broad religious accommodation law while explaining that accommodations need not be granted where they “impose unjustified burdens” on third parties or the State. Most recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court granted a religious accommodation to an employer but repeatedly emphasized in the opinion the fact that employees would, according to the Court, not be harmed.

and then the legal scholars quote two cases where religious liberties were upheld, but they want us to believe that HB1523 will cause government to "tend to express support" by not allowing homosexuals to punish religion for following their beliefs... this is twisted logic... two cases uphold the rights of people and companies to practice their sincerely held beliefs, HB1523 goes out of its way to secure the rights of both homosexuals and religion, yet by passage of this law the government has "expressed support" for one over the other... by supporting the rights of one group, you are not de facto denying the rights of another group... you can, in fact, allow both parties their rights, which is what HB1523, albeit clumsily, tries to do.

Those who will be most harmed by this law are LGBT Mississippians, intersex persons, persons who defy sex and gender stereotypes, and persons who have had sex outside marriage—the most easily-identifiable of whom are unmarried parents and pregnant persons.

oh my God (pun intended).

In many different contexts that will be enumerated below, the law strips Mississippians of applicable antidiscrimination protections in order to accommodate the preferences of religious individuals and institutions.

so what are the "enumerated" contexts which protections will be removed?

Several Mississippi municipalities have passed resolutions opposing discrimination against LGBT people, or protecting LGBT people from some forms of discrimination. As acceptance for LGBT rights continues to grow, other municipalities are likely to follow suit. In addition, some administrative agencies and courts have held that sex discrimination laws are properly interpreted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex stereotyping, sexual orientation, or gender identity. In 2013, for example, the 5th Circuit found that the prohibition of sexual harassment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protected a male employee whose male co-workers called him “kind of gay” and a “faggot.”

 i'm just going throw a flag here.

By exempting certain religious entities from an obligation to treat all Mississippians equally, HB 1523 effectively sacrifices the equality rights of many in order to accommodate the religious preferences of a few. In some cases, accommodations will also intrude upon Mississippians’ privacy rights. Allowing discrimination based on sexual practices and gender identity could lead employers, housing providers, businesses, and even the state to demand intrusive and unnecessary information from citizens about their sexual histories, practices, and even their private anatomies.

now, i will agree that HB1523 makes a faux pas when it comes to religious organization housing providers... Section 3(1)(c) of the law states that:

The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization wholly or partially on the basis that such organization [m]akes any decision concerning the sale, rental, occupancy of, or terms and conditions of occupying a dwelling or other housing under its control, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.

but i don't know of a case where a religious organization has property which is for public sale, rent, or occupancy which it could then discriminate against someone who is LGBT... most religious property is for private sale, rent, or occupancy by persons of the same religion... can someone who does not agree to the Christian regulations of Homes of Grace, a faith based addiction recovery organization, force them to provide them with services?... only by the protections of HB1523 is Homes of Grace protected.

Several provisions of HB 1523 allow government employees—who represent the state and have sworn to uphold the law—to discriminate against LGBT and unmarried Mississippians based on their religious beliefs.

well that's only partially true... the government employees, who have the same Constitutionally guaranteed rights as private citizens, are able to recuse themselves from taking part in activities which they are morally or religiously against... however, HB1523 specifically provides relief to the people who seek those activities... and it provides language which allows those people, generally LGBT persons, if impeded or delayed... Section 3(8)(b) specifically says:

The person who is recusing himself or herself shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the authorization and licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal.

see?... the person who is recusing themselves from the process must personally ensure that their recusal does not impede or delay the person seeking relief... the onus is upon us if we wish to recuse ourselves.

Further, it’s unclear what will happen if all clerks at a particular location exempt themselves.

the fairy-tale scenario of "what if everyone recuses themselves" is forcibly denied by the requirement that those who recuse themselves must personally ensure that someone will provide the service!... in fact, Section 8(2) says:

Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the state government from providing, either directly or through an individual or entity not seeking protection under this act, any benefit or service authorized under state law.

so they are trying to provide religious freedom on one hand, and protection from discrimination at the same time!

Section 3(4) prohibits the government from taking “discriminatory action” against persons who decline to provide counseling or other medical services based on their religious beliefs about sex, marriage, and gender identity.

the legal scholars' example is "For example, a mental health counselor employed at a public school, whose salary is paid by the government, could refuse to work with LGBT students because of her religious beliefs and keep her job."... aside from the sexist pronoun (how about them apples?), i would argue that this is an extremely unlikely proposition, which could be simply remedied by the school in question by having the counselors make their objections known upfront, and the school would then provide a counselor who does not have that particular objection... but i'd have to throw a flag against myself:

and i'd be right... just because it's improbable, that does not make it impossible... so i will concede that HB1523 falls short on the side of government employees and complete coverage of remedies... the law should have provided the same protections provided in Section 3(8) to those in Section 3(4)... but i would argue that the reverse side of the coin would be just as offensive:

"For example, a doctor employed at a public hospital, whose salary is paid by the government, could refuse to perform abortions because of her religious beliefs and lose her job."

however, a poorly constructed law does not negate the truth which stands behind the need for such a law... there are numerous examples of intolerance of religion by those who are promoting LGBT causes... this law was crafted not to deny rights, but to protect the rights of individuals who are being assailed... simply acting in accord to one's faith has become punishable by extremists who disagree with the tenets of the religion.

but all of this misses the point of HB1523... if religion were not under attack, this type of legislation would not have been necessary.

---

source:
Mississippi Lawyers, Legal Scholars Respond to HB1523 | JFP Mobile | Jackson, Mississippi
HB1523 - Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act
Romer v. Evans
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Homes of Grace

free exercise will cost you

ME: The law should protect both parties' rights; rights of equal protection and of religion.
THEM: Your group is infringing on my group's rights and discriminating against them.
ME: My group has religious rights, too. The law should accommodate both parties' rights.
THEM: Your group has every right to their religious beliefs, right up to the point where they infringe on my group's religious beliefs.
ME: You never address how to keep your group from infringing on my group's rights.
THEM: No one is telling your group what to believe. Or infringing on their practice of religion. They can pick either their religion or their employment, but not both.
ME: Your solution is they lose their jobs? How is that not an infringement of my group's religious rights?
THEM: Suck it up and do it, or find another job. Your group is free to practice their beliefs, as long as the practice does not infringe on my group's beliefs.
ME: You continue to deny accommodation for my group, while requiring accommodation of yours. How is that equal?
THEM: I made no request for accommodation for my group. I only threatened your group with their source of income. Your group is free to act against their religion. Or they can lose their job.

Why am I spending so much time fighting this battle?

Because, even though Kim Davis (county clerk in Kentucky) may have been in the wrong for HOW she acted, this is a larger demonstration of what has been going on in this country.

In a country where one of the very first enumerated rights is the "free exercise" of religion, it is hard to believe how often that right is being taken away. Perhaps even more concerning is how unequally those rights are being observed, even allowed. Cake bakers, photographers, military personnel, private property owners, flower shops, printing companies, and private individuals are being taken to court, as well as slandered in public, over their deeply held religious beliefs.

And with each instance, the clamoring gets louder that religion is something to be ashamed of; to hide away in your homes. Which is even more startling given the history of those who shout the loudest; those who for so very long had to hide their own beliefs for fear of ridicule and retaliation. Somehow, in this upside-down world, it is "Justice" to attack, degrade, and demean those who disagree. But it is that type of behavior which is called "bigotry" when practiced by those who call themselves "conservative". Yet it's hailed as "Social Justice" by those who, without irony, call themselves "progressives".

This largely takes place against openly Christian groups and individuals.

Yet with each instance, should the groups switch places, or should a different favored group be inserted for the "offensive" christian group, the reaction is entirely different. If a christian denies a homosexual access to their services, they are reviled, slandered, and often litigated.

Not so, if it were a homosexual denying a christian.

Not so, if it were a muslim group denying a homosexual. Or sometimes, even killing them.

---

Dick and Betty Odgaard believed in 2013 that they were standing for their Mennonite beliefs when they refused to let a gay couple get married at their Gortz Haus Gallery, a Grimes church they had turned into a flower shop and bistro.
The Odgaards in December agreed to a settlement with the two men stating that their business would not discriminate in offering its services to the public. Instead of being forced to open the venue to same-sex weddings, the Odgaards ended their wedding business entirely.

---

Stutzman is the Washington florist who has been sued for living out her Christian beliefs. In 2013, a long-time friend and customer came to her flower shop and asked her to provide flowers for his gay wedding. Stutzman had known this man and had done business with him for about nine years. Nevertheless, she told him that she could not participate in his wedding "because of my relationship with Jesus."
Keep in mind that Stutzman does not refuse service to gay people. Indeed she had been selling flowers to this gay couple for nine years. She has also employed gay people in her flower shop.
The court also ruled recently that both the state and the same-sex couple, who each filed lawsuits against her, may collect damages and attorneys fees not only from her business, but from Stutzman personally. That means the 70-year-old grandmother may not only lose her business, but also her home and savings because she lives her life and operates her business according to her beliefs.

---

In Oregon, the state labor commissioner in July ordered the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa to pay $135,000 damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to bake them a wedding cake. Aaron and Melissa Klein have appealed the ruling to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

---

Hands On Originals contended that it declined the T-shirt order because it is a Christian company and disagreed with the message of the shirt. The shirt was a stylized numeral 5 on the front. On the back was "Lexington Pride Festival" and a list of sponsors of the gay pride event.
Sexton said in a statement that the ruling is a landmark for Lexington's Fairness Ordinance. "If you're going to do business in Lexington, you must make your goods and services accessible to everyone regardless of the protected classes, including sexual orientation and gender identity. ... If this was a case involving race, religion or national origin, there would be no debate on right or wrong."

---

Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk, assigned to the 37th Training Wing, said Friday he was relieved July 26 of his duties as first sergeant of a training squadron and forced to take leave because he disagreed with his commanding officer’s position on gay marriage. He says his commander is openly lesbian.
Monk said he was subsequently relieved of his duties at the unit, and had to request permission to return in order to collect personal items. “I was relieved of my position because I do not agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” he said.

---

Atlanta city officials say they were within their rights to fire former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran because he wrote — and offered for sale — a Christian book without permission and gave copies of it to nearly two dozen people at work.
The councilman, who is openly gay, has told the Atlanta Constitution-Journal that “when you’re a city employee and [your] thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door,” according to ADF attorneys.

---

source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/01/gortz-haus-indiana-religion-law/70810344/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/08/colorado_court_rules_against_c.html
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/10/07/3468006_hands-on-originals-discriminated.html?rh=1
http://archive.militarytimes.com/article/20130816/NEWS05/308160021/AF-sgt-claims-he-fired-religious-views-gays
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-texas-judge-tonya-parker-won-perform-marriages-straight-couples-article-1.1027709
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/?page=all
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/being-gay-in-the-islamic-state-men-reveal-chilling-truth-about-homosexuality-under-isis-10470894.html

Obama's Historic Firsts - UPDATE

i re-blogged some vitriolic anti-Obama name-calling, with a disclaimer that i had not researched many of the claims... fear not, gentle reader... i have done some due-diligence and looked up the validity of many of the more outrageous claims.

---

UPDATE

• President Obama was NOT the first to violate the War Powers Act... President Clinton was... 1999 in the bombing of Kosovo.
• while the "Fast and Furious" affair is simply inexcusable, let us not forget the Iran-Contra affair... what started as arms-for-hostages turned into simple gun-running and terrorist arming.
• Obama was not the first president to be held in contempt by a federal judge... Clinton is the one to hold that dubious honor... Nixon came very close, having a federal judge declare that he could be held in contempt should he not turn over the Watergate tapes.
• i don't think anyone can say there haven't been many former Presidents which have "defied a court order"... some were worse than others... but we really shouldn't encourage this behavior... then again, we can't hold one to a different standard than another.
• there's the claim of being the first President to "hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process"... we all do remember G.W. Bush, right?
• Obama declared DOMA to be unconstitutional... sounds like an overreach of the Constitution, right?... not so fast... seek out Myers v. US... the Supreme Court has decided that the President must use some judgement in enforcement of laws... the court is the final judge (no pun), but the President must enforce the Constitution first and laws, second.
• Obama suing a state is not a first... Irony Alert!... while Obama sued AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc. over the states enforcement of the federal immigration laws, it was G.W. Bush who first sued Illinois... get this: they were sued because they REFUSED to enforce federal immigration laws!!!... the irony is on SO many levels!

Historic Firsts

i haven't researched these, but thought i'd re-blog this, if only as food-for-thought... i'll update as i learn more.

Doug Ross provides a handy rundown of just how historic our beloved President has been...

 

A few examples:

 

• First President to Violate the War Powers Act
• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
• First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office

Read on for nearly 30 more historic firsts...

---

source:
The Mental Recession: A Complete List of Historic Firsts For Our Preside...

---

EDIT
the original list by Doug Ross:

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government
• First President to Violate the War Powers Act
• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
• First President to issue an unlawful "recess-appointment" while the U.S. Senate remained in session (against the advice of his own Justice Department).
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law
• First President to halt deportations of illegal aliens and grant them work permits, a form of stealth amnesty roughly equivalent to "The DREAM Act", which could not pass Congress
• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs
• First President to sue states for requiring valid IDs to vote, even though the same administration requires valid IDs to travel by air
• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters
• First President to sign into law a bill that permits the government to "hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process. No indictment. No judge or jury. No evidence. No trial. Just an indefinite jail sentence."
• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat
• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases
• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler
• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"
• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees
• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.
• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places
• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"
• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It
• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory
• First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.
• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)
• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago
• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case
• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts
• First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil
• First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office

OWS was known to the Founding Fathers

I presume that there can be no political happiness, unless industry be cherished and protected, and properly secured.

Suppose a poor man becomes rich by honest labor, and increases the public stock of wealth: shall his reward be the loss of that liberty he set out with?

Will you take away every stimulus to industry, by declaring that he shall not retain the fruits of it? The idea of the poor becoming rich by assiduity is not mere fancy.

I am old enough, and have had sufficient experience, to know the effects of it. I have often known persons, commencing in life without any other stock but industry and economy, by the mere efforts before, rise to opulence and wealth. This could not have been the case without a government to protect their industry.

– Edmund Pendleton, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 12, 1788; "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution," Vol. 3, p. 295

the new Constitution

In his two years and nine months in office, President Obama has compiled a spectacular record of noncompliance with the Constitution.

all emphasis, added...

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that under Mr. Obama’s direction, the Justice Department would no longer defend [the Defense of Marriage Act]. DOMA, [was] passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.

can i ignore laws i don't like?

After New Black Panther Party members were caught on tape intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, the Justice Department declined to defend the convictions.

so much for "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"...

 [T]he administration announced a new policy that, in effect, ends enforcement of illegal immigration, providing the illegal alien meets the requirements of the Dream Act, a bill Congress failed to pass.

they won't uphold actual laws, but they will enforce ones that did not pass...

The EPA has become a law unto itself. The Obama administration also has ignored a federal judge’s ruling that it acted illegally in prohibiting new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

who needs Congress, when you can just make your own laws...

The National Labor Relations Board’s absurd order to the Boeing Co. not to open a newly built $750-million Dreamliner facility in right-to-work South Carolina, because unions in Boeing’s home state of Washington object, violates that guarantee [of the Fifth Amendment's "due process of law" and "just compensation".

what's next?... state-owned corporations?... and they call Republicans "fascist"!...

[The National Labor Relations Board] declar[ed] two Catholic universities - St. Xavier University in Chicago and Manhattan College in New York - not sufficiently “religious.”

i guess they should have been muslim...

---

KNIGHT: Obama tears up the Constitution - Washington Times#.TncraZeC8jM.facebook

ReBlog - history will repeat itself

history will repeat itself... this is a truth we learned in our youth... our social studies, civics, and history professors said it time and time again... and yet we don't listen... we don't learn... history will repeat itself.

If we are to survive the looming catastrophe, we need to face the truth - By Janet Daley 9:00PM BST 06 Aug 2011 - Telegraph
[emphasis added]

Which of these is the most important question to ask in the present economic crisis: how can we promote growth? Should we pay off government debt more or less quickly? Is the US in worse trouble than Europe? Answer: none of the above.

The truly fundamental question that is at the heart of the disaster toward which we are racing is being debated only in America: is it possible for a free market economy to support a democratic socialist society? On this side of the Atlantic [UK], the model of a national welfare system with comprehensive entitlements, which is paid for by the wealth created through capitalist endeavour, has been accepted (even by parties of the centre-Right) as the essence of post-war political enlightenment.

This was the heaven on earth for which liberal democracy had been striving: a system of wealth redistribution that was merciful but not Marxist, and a guarantee of lifelong economic and social security for everyone that did not involve totalitarian government. This was the ideal the European Union was designed to entrench. It was the dream of Blairism, which adopted it as a replacement for the state socialism of Old Labour. And it is the aspiration of President Obama and his liberal Democrats, who want the United States to become a European-style social democracy.

But the US has a very different historical experience from European countries, with their accretions of national remorse and class guilt: it has a far stronger and more resilient belief in the moral value of liberty and the dangers of state power. This is a political as much as an economic crisis, but not for the reasons that Mr Obama believes. The ruckus that nearly paralysed the US economy last week, and led to the loss of its AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s, arose from a confrontation over the most basic principles of American life.

Contrary to what the Obama Democrats claimed, the face-off in Congress did not mean that the nation’s politics were “dysfunctional”. The politics of the US were functioning precisely as the Founding Fathers intended: the legislature was acting as a check on the power of the executive.

The Tea Party faction within the Republican party was demanding that, before any further steps were taken, there must be a debate about where all this was going. They had seen the future toward which they were being pushed, and it didn’t work. They were convinced that the entitlement culture and benefits programmes which the Democrats were determined to preserve and extend with tax rises could only lead to the diminution of that robust economic freedom that had created the American historical miracle.

And, again contrary to prevailing wisdom, their view is not naive and parochial: it is corroborated by the European experience. By rights, it should be Europe that is immersed in this debate, but its leaders are so steeped in the sacred texts of social democracy that they cannot admit the force of the contradictions which they are now hopelessly trying to evade.

No, it is not just the preposterousness of the euro project that is being exposed. (Let’s merge the currencies of lots of countries with wildly differing economic conditions and lock them all into the interest rate of the most successful. What could possibly go wrong?)

Also collapsing before our eyes is the lodestone of the Christian Socialist doctrine that has underpinned the EU’s political philosophy: the idea that a capitalist economy can support an ever-expanding socialist welfare state.

As the EU leadership is (almost) admitting now, the next step to ensure the survival of the world as we know it will involve moving toward a command economy, in which individual countries and their electorates will lose significant degrees of freedom and self-determination.

We have arrived at the endgame of what was an untenable doctrine: to pay for the kind of entitlements that populations have been led to expect by their politicians, the wealth-creating sector has to be taxed to a degree that makes it almost impossible for it to create the wealth that is needed to pay for the entitlements that populations have been led to expect, etc, etc.

The only way that state benefit programmes could be extended in the ways that are forecast for Europe’s ageing population would be by government seizing all the levers of the economy and producing as much (externally) worthless currency as was needed – in the manner of the old Soviet Union.

That is the problem. So profound is its challenge to the received wisdom of postwar Western democratic life that it is unutterable in the EU circles in which the crucial decisions are being made – or rather, not being made.

The solution that is being offered to the political side of the dilemma is benign oligarchy. Ignoring national public opinion and turbulent political minorities has always been at least half the point of the EU bureaucratic putsch. But that does not settle the economic predicament.

What is to be done about all those assurances that governments have provided for generations about state-subsidised security in old age, universal health provision (in Britain, almost uniquely, completely free), and a guaranteed living standard for the unemployed?

We have been pretending – with ever more manic protestations – that this could go on for ever. Even when it became clear that European state pensions (and the US social security system) were gigantic Ponzi schemes in which the present beneficiaries were spending the money of the current generation of contributors, and that health provision was creating impossible demands on tax revenue, and that benefit dependency was becoming a substitute for wealth-creating employment, the lesson would not be learnt. We have been living on tick and wishful thinking.

So what are the most important truths we should be addressing if we are to avert – or survive – the looming catastrophe? Raising retirement ages across Europe (not just in Greece) is imperative, as is raising thresholds for out-of-work benefit entitlements.

Lowering the tax burden for both wealth-creators and consumers is essential. In Britain, finding private sources of revenue for health care is a matter of urgency.

A general correction of the imbalance between wealth production and wealth redistribution is now a matter of basic necessity, not ideological preference.

The hardest obstacle to overcome will be the idea that anyone who challenges the prevailing consensus of the past 50 years is irrational and irresponsible. That is what is being said about the Tea Partiers. In fact, what is irrational and irresponsible is the assumption that we can go on as we are.

history will repeat itself... this is a truth we learned in our youth... our social studies, civics, and history professors said it time and time again... and yet we don't listen... we don't learn... history will repeat itself, unless we heed it's dire warning.

update this

Reply/Comment to Fareed Zakaria (CNN-GPS)
While the electoral college suggestions are not without merit, your suggestion about the Senate shows your total lack of understanding of how (and why) the Senate exists. Please do some research before you display your ignorance.
The House of Representatives is the portion of Congress which represents (to a degree) the "one-man-one-vote" idea. The number of Representatives are based on population numbers. A small state, like Rhode Island, doesn't have as much representation (and thus, as much power) as a more populous state. There is no way a smaller state could block any legislation of larger states. The Senate is designed specifically to prevent such "mob rule". Each state, no matter the size, must come to accords on equal footing. Therefore, a minority of populous states cannot push legislation which is detrimental to smaller states. So you need to do some more research. I (personally) think you should retract your comments and publish your new understanding of the Constitution.

Link to Comment
Selected text from article:

The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.

born free... pay for everything else

Obama Health Care Lawsuit Rejected By U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler:

She also said that anyone who objects to having health care for religious reasons can choose to pay the penalty instead – as the lawsuit said all five plaintiffs plan to do.

so, people have to pay the Federal Government to practice their religion... interesting reading of the Constitution, comrade.

Kessler also expressed doubts that they can really determine whether they will never require health care. "Individuals like plaintiffs who allege now that they will refuse medical services in the future may well find their way into the health care market when they face the reality of illness or injury," she wrote.

do they get a refund when they die if they didn't use medical services?... what if they die having paid for their own medical care out of their own pockets?... what part of the Constitution allows Big Brother to think for us?... all this time, i was under the impression this was a free country.

it's not free anymore... you have to pay to breathe the air.