Response to “God Bless America”

In Response to “God Bless America” found at http://grantpant.blogspot.com/2008/05/god-bless-america.html

Grant, I couldn’t agree with you more. This is the greatest and “freest” nation in the world. Through out my life, I have had the wonderful opportunities of visiting many countries across the globe. Prior to exploring those other countries, I was of the opinion that any where was better than where I was. I had the opportunity to see life first hand in Russia in 1993-1995 while Communism fell, I’ve seen children who were purposefully disfigured by their parents to make them better beggars on the streets of India, and I’ve seen the wonderful “protection and programs” offered to Western Europeans at the cost of a 50% to 75% tax rate. I’ve also spent a lot of time in many other Asian and South American countries and I have come to the conclusion that this is the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.

For now.

If we do not participate in our political process, things could go just as sour for Americans as they have in many other places. We have a duty as citizens to ensure that we elect the best people that we can not only for the office of president, but starting at the local level. We as citizens must do every thing we can to ensure that freedom we hold so dear. Granted, there are injustices and scandals. Human nature prevents the possibility of Utopia. Everyone speaks of their rights as citizens and there is public outcry if they are infringed upon. In contrast, how often do we shirk those duties that ensure the rights we enjoy? I understand that doing a duty means work, but it is a necessary and proud duty that every American needs to perform.

I have just figured it out.

I have just figured it out. Ariana Huffington is the bastard love child of Zsa Zsa Gabor and Nikita Khrushchev. It may have been a threesome involving Joseph McCarthy.

A Little Fun

I'm clapping like this.

Vote or Die?

In the midst of the intense media frenzy surrounding the Presidential Primaries, a much larger than average number of citizens are engaging in conversations about politics and the political process. One can hardly eat in a restaurant without over hearing a debate on who would make a better president. Campuses are over flowing with people handing out pamphlets for one political party or the other and the debates around the water cooler are heated and deliberate. Although most begin as a debate on “who is cooler” or which candidate will end the war sooner, some portend to go deeper and center on “exercising your Federal duty and God given right to vote.” Others delve in to the subject of efficacy and the continued existence of the Electoral College.

Many people contend that we as American citizens have a God given right to vote and that right is protected and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

However, this is not the case. Aside from the fact that I never voted for God, the United States Constitution simply does not guarantee the right of all humans to vote in Federal elections.

Some would argue that the Constitution does grant the right of universal suffrage and will point to four different amendments:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.— Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870) The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.— Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920) The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.— Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1964) The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.— Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1971)

While it is true that the issue of voting is covered in the fifteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fourth and the twenty-sixth amendments it was decided by the Supreme Court that these stipulations apply to States who have State Constitutions that guarantee the right to vote in State and local elections on multiple occasions. The

In McPherson v. Blacker (1862) the Supreme Court ruled “The second clause of Article II of the Constitution was not amended by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they do not limit the power of appointment to the particular manner pursued at the time of the adoption of these amendments or secure to every male inhabitant of a state, being a citizen of the United States, the right from the time of his majority to vote for presidential electors” In essence, McPherson v. Blacker (1862) defers to the Electoral College to pick the President and states that the inhabitant does not have the right to vote for President.

More recently, in Bush v. Gore (2000) the Supreme Court reiterated “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”

These and other rulings are a clear threat to voter efficacy. If the people feel that they have no bearing on the delegates that are selected to represent them in the Electoral College, why should they even vote? The answer is that until an individual participates in the entirety of the political machine they truly have no bearing on the leaders of this Nation. It can be said that until a voter participates at the very base levels of the state government and understands who they are placing in the seats of their State Legislature, they can have no impact. While it is true in some states delegates to the Electoral College are compelled to vote with their states election outcomes, there is no constitutional requirement for the delegates to do so. So yet again, it is possible that the will of the people and efficacy could be threatened.

What then can be done in order to ensure the will of the people and increase efficacy?

Some, such as Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. believe that we need an amendment to the constitution to explicitly grant the right to vote in Federal elections to all citizens. Others contend that such an amendment would be a solid affront to states rights and would dilute the already depleted powers of state governmental bodies resulting in further disenfranchisement of voters.
However, there are others who believe there is a much better way: Abolish the Electoral College and rely on the popular vote.

The origins of electoral colleges are known to predate even the Visigoths when the law of the Germanic tribes dictated that a King must be elected by the court of his nobles. During the founding days of the United States, the Electoral College was still a viable and necessary means of presidential election. The Electoral College simplified the voting process so that it was not necessary for every citizen to travel to the Capitol to vote or to tabulate each and every paper ballot. However, The Electoral College has the undesirable effect of allowing the parties to send members who will vote strictly on party lines and not on what is best for the Population as a whole. A well known example and exercise in this matter was the use of delegates to the Electoral College by the southern states to ensure the question of Slavery was never broached in the early days of the Nation. Simply stated, The Electoral College is no longer required and in fact does the people of America more harm than good. With the advent of high speed travel, electronic media and a more aware voting public, the time has come to amend the constitution not to federally guarantee the right to vote, but to abolish the Electoral College and establish a nomination process based on the will of the people.

While the issue has been raised before, not much has ever come of the motions. Most notably, there was a terrible outcry for the abolishment of the Electoral College after Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the Presidential election in 2000. In December of 2004, Senator Diane Feinstein proposed the abolishment of the Electoral College; however, her efforts were tabled until recently. In September 2007, Feinstein again began ushering her cries for the abolishment of the Electoral College. However, not much more than lip service had been paid to the effort until March of 2008 when Senator Bill Nelson proposed a new nomination process based on the popular vote.

Call me cynical, but I see the entire issue dissolving in to nothingness within months after the next presidential election. It is our duty as citizens to ensure that it stays in the conversations around our water coolers and in the halls of Congress long after the Election has come and gone.



Some sites with more information on the electoral college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

http://www.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

http://www.therestofus.org/electoral_college/FAQs.htm

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electoralattack.htm

http://www.petitiononline.com/ctd2000/petition.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-bill-nelson-abolish-electoral-college-2008-03-27.html



Of course, there are those who would argue that by putting too much faith in the hands of a generally uneducated public, we could end up with this guy as president.

Still taken from the movie Idiocracy

Response to We Need More Money

Response

We Need More Money
I am sure that most of you drove past the gas stations this week and saw how ridiculous the gas prices were. $ 4 a gallon is just ridiculous. If the president would just listen to me, I have an idea on how to help the average person to pay for there gas. The government should set a National minimum wage that is 7 dollars or higher to help the people cope with inflation.In the last year, the cost of gas has risen a considerable amount. More than most of us could have ever imagined and to be honest no one has a set idea as to why. Many believe its because of the war and others believe its our problems with other foreign nations. Either way you look at it, the people get the short end of the stick. 5 dollars and 15 cents an hour barley gets you a gallon and a half of gas, but compare that to all the other things we have to pay for like medical insurance, food, shelter and clothing, the average American person will simply not be able to live if the price of gas and inflation keep going up and the minimum wage stays the same. All our government has to do is raise how much we get paid hourly, and then we will spend more and in return our economic spending will increase.But lets just face it. Were going to end up the poorest country in ten years if this keeps up.
Response to We Need More Money

In the article titled We Need More Money, a few claims are made which require debate.

First, the article proposes that we simply raise the minimum wage to $7.00 an hour. This is no simple task and its implications are extremely far reaching. On May 25th of 2007, Bush actually did sign a bill that would increase the minimum wage in 3 parts. “to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009” In economics, it has to be understood that if an employer has to pay more for each employee and the income of the business does not increase, than that employer will in turn have to lay off employees in order to keep the business from failing. In fact, since the minimum wage was just raised to 5.85$ on July 24th, 2007 several people have alluded to a correlation with the downturn of the economy.

Second, while the prospect of gas at $4.00 a gallon is not the happiest moment in my day, I will say that anyone who has ever had to buy gay in another country still isn’t all that shocked. While I was an exchange student in Voronezh, Russia in 1993 and 1994, almost 15 years ago, “Petrol” or Gas was around $5.00 U.S.D. In 2006, I traveled to Ireland for work. Gas there is sold by the liter. At the time, gas was at about 2.09 Euro for a liter. Given the exchange rate of Euro’s to Dollars of about 1.59$ and 3.785 liters to the gallon, I paid about 12.57$ per gallon (2.09 x 3.785 x 1.59). I’ve been told that it is up over 3 euro per liter there now. In Vancouver, Canada last year, I paid about 4.50$ per gallon.

How do people survive in Russia, Ireland, and Canada with gas prices that high? They use the public transportation system. You’ve actually already paid for it in your sales taxes, why not use it and save the money for more important things like food and shelter; and be glad your income tax rate is no where near as high as it is in those other countries.

Obama: Hope or Hype?

George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. Mahatma Gandhi. Martin Luther King Jr. The names of these men are almost universally associated with greatness. All of them have brought true hope and change to their countries in times of strife and struggle.

Does the name Barack Obama deserve to be uttered in the same breath as these men? Can Barack bring about the changes and provide the hope that he has claimed on so many occasions that he can and will do? Is Barack the “new generation of leadership” as Ted Kennedy has claimed? Can he “bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad?” as Bill Richardson has claimed? Can he “Heal our nation and save our souls” as Michelle Obama has asserted? Or is it just politics as usual on the campaign trail?

No one can answer these questions with a definite yes or no. Therefore, we need to take a look at what kind of leader Obama has been in the past and what experiences have shaped him as a human being. We as voters have a duty to ourselves and to our country to see what kind of people the leaders we elect have been in their lives and how they have led.

At first glance, Obama is an impressive man. Obama is a brilliant orator and as any good lawyer should, he possesses a strong and persuasive voice. Obama’s speeches have been known to be touching and inspiring. He has bridged the issue of race. He has vowed fight inflating health care costs. He has vowed to never take any money from political action committees or big corporate lobbyists. He has vowed to take on NAFTA. He has stated that he has the experience to lead. Can we believe him?

Who is Barack Obama?

As we discussed in class, a persons ideologies are formed early in their lives.
Obama was born in 1962 in Honolulu, Hawaii. His mother and father separated when he was 2. When he was 6, Obama moved with his mother and new step father to Indonesia where he lived until he was 10 years old. At this point in his life, Barack or “Barry” as he was called at the time returned to Hawaii to live with his Methodist, “typical white grand mother” in her high-rise apartment where he lived until his high school graduation in 1979.

Obama attended Occidental College and Columbia University, receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1983. In 1985, Obama moved to Chicago where he first joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ congregation.
In 1988, Barack attended Harvard Law School and graduated in 1991. He was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

Obama returned to Chicago and was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, where he served 4 terms.

One fact that is of no importance but is interesting none the less is that on his mothers side Obama has “blood kinship with Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell, George Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, James Madison, Dick Cheney, Brad Pitt and confederate general Robert E Lee”

Can Barack stand on the issues?

Obama began his political life in the Illinois State Senate where he championed ethics and health care reform; Issues that have persisted in to his U.S. Senate experience and in his Presidential bid.

While it is normal for a presidential candidate who is in the house or the Senate to miss a few votes while running for office, Barack has missed 37.4% in the 110th session of Congress. However, in his first ever term as Senator in the 109th session of Congress Barack only missed 1.7%. Barack’s votes have been fairly consistent with his positions developed in his early career. However, Obama has regularly avoided votes on abortion laws.

In 2004, Barack spoke at the Democratic National Convention giving a speech that inspired many people including Oprah Winfrey. After which, Oprah began throwing around Obama’s name as a man who she would like to see run for president. And if Oprah says it, the people of the world must obey or suffer the wrath of Dr. Phil.

Most of Obama’s national identity has been during his campaign. Unfortunately, Obama has had several recent flaps that have been highly publicized which may impact his presidential bid.

In September of 2007, Obama slammed Hillary Clinton in regards to her comment that it was ok to take money from P.A.C.’s and Lobbyists as they represented the common people. Obama had stated that he would not take campaign contributions from lobbyists. However, while he was serving in Illinois he did take money from health care lobbyists while he was working on healthcare legislation. Seems like politics as usual to me.

In March of 2008, at the Democratic primary debate in Ohio, Obama stated that he would renegotiate NAFTA with Mexico and Canada and stated that he had been consistent about his position on the issue. However, when Barack was questioned about NAFTA in 2004, he stated that he would not repeal NAFTA as he thought that it would cause more harm than good giving to the fact that NAFTA has been entrenched in to America’s economic system for 10 years. Even worse and more “Politics as usual”, Canadian CTV reported the day after the debate an Obama staffer contacted the Canadian Embassy and assured them that Obama’s statements were just “Political rhetoric” and insinuated that no matter what he said, Barack was simply trying to get elected.

Of course no discourse on the recent history of the presidential campaign would be complete without mentioning the shit storm that surrounded Barack’s ties to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. While I will not rehash the comments made by Wright, his “retirement” and Barack’s subsequent inspiring “A More Perfect Union” speech trying to explain the race relations (that he fully experienced in Hawaii and Jakarta.) I will say that if Barack wanted to experience true America, he should have chosen a different congregation.

In Summation, I feel that Obama is simply another Hamiltonian politician who believes the elite know and understand what’s best for the common man. Obama is a Marcus Garvey for our times if you will. He is a man whose own privileged upbringing taints his views and will lead to decisions that are not in the best interest of the rest of the population.

Tories and Whigs: Just to Answer My Own Question

Taken from http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Whig_And_Tory

“The origin of "Whig" has been much controverted; it has been associated with the Scots for "whey," as implying a taunt against the "sour-milk" faces of the western Lowlanders; another theory is that it represented the initials of the Scots Covenanters' motto, "We hope in God"; another derives it from the Scots word "whiggam," used by peasants in driving their horses. It was, however, a form of the Scots Gaelic term used to describe cattle and horse thieves, and transferred to the adherents of the Presbyterian cause in Scotland. "Tory" is derived from the Irish Tar a Ri, " Come, oh king!" associated with the creed of the Irish native levies enlisted in the civil wars on behalf of the loyalist cause; the outlaws who fought for James in Ireland after the revolution were similarly nicknamed Rapparees or Tories”

“The persistency of the names of the two parties is mainly owing to their essential unmeaningness. As new questions arose, the names of the old parties were retained, though the objects of contention were no longer the same.”


Taken from http://www.etymonline.com/

Tory
1566, "an outlaw," specifically "a robber," from Ir. toruighe "plunderer," originally "pursuer, searcher," from O.Ir. toirighim "I pursue," related to toracht "pursuit." About 1646, it emerged as a derogatory term for Irish Catholics dispossessed of their land (some of whom subsequently turned to outlawry); c.1680 applied by Exclusioners to supporters of the Catholic Duke of York (later James II) in his succession to the throne of England. After 1689, Tory was the name of a British political party at first composed of Yorkist Tories of 1680. Superseded c.1830 by Conservative, though it continues to be used colloquially. In American history, Tory was the name given after 1769 to colonists who remained loyal to George III of England.


Whig
British political party, 1657, in part perhaps a disparaging use of whigg "a country bumpkin" (c.1645); but mainly a shortened form of Whiggamore (1649) "one of the adherents of the Presbyterian cause in western Scotland who marched on Edinburgh in 1648 to oppose Charles I." Perhaps originally "a horse drover," from dialectal verb whig "to urge forward" + mare. The name was first used 1689 in reference to members of the British political party that opposed the Tories. American Revolution sense of "colonist who opposes Crown policies" is from 1768. Later it was applied to opponents of Andrew Jackson (1825), and taken as the name of a political party (1834) that merged into the Republican Party in 1854-56. Whig historian "one who views history as an inevitable march of progress" is recorded from 1924.