Twelve States Will Determine the Next President of the U.S.A.

While twelve states determine the winner of the presidency, the choice of the majority can and has been overruled by a silly, stupid election system.

As we all know there is no national direct election for president of the United States. Instead the constitution requires electors to vote for the president. The system has evolved into a popular vote in each state. The winner of each state determines that the state’s total electors vote for the winning candidate. Thus, if a majority of California voters select Obama in the next election then the total number of electors (the sum equals the congressman and senators) are given entirely to Obama. Whichever candidate wins 270 electors is the winner. The winner of the most electors can lose the popular vote as George W. Bush did in the 2000 election.

Since pollsters can tell the candidates what the likely outcome is for each state, the candidates will focus their campaigning on those states that they are narrowly losing.

Thus there are just 12 states that will most likely determine who will win the November election. Most polls indicate that the determining states are North Carolina (15), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), Virginia (13), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Wisconsin (10), New Hampshire (4), and Colorado (9).

The election process is inequitable to the majority of the people since the four largest population centers in the nation are not in any of those states.

The USA is not Alone in the Issue of Gun Violence

From the Toronto Star Newspaper web site.

Published on Wednesday July 18, 2012

On Monday night, Toronto was rocked by a tragic act of gun violence — two innocent bystanders murdered, many others injured. Importantly, this crime occurred in the wake of similar public incidents, including the recent Eaton Centre shooting.

These crimes have led to a number of seemingly contradictory statements by public officials. Police Chief Bill Blair, for example, called the Scarborough shooting unprecedented and the worst case of gun violence in North America. By contrast, Mayor Rob Ford stated that despite the recent spate of gun violence, Toronto remains the safest city in the world. Neither statement is true.

Read the rest of the article here.

We all remember the killing in Norway where a man is accused of killing 77 people in a bomb-and-gun rampage in Norway last summer said his actions were justified to save the country from multicultural forces. Read the CNN report here.

“The National Rifle Association is America’s foremost defender of Second Amendment rights. Since its inception in 1871.” Those are the first words you see when Googling the organization’s name. I am impressed with the usual first words out of someone’s mouth in defending their right to bare arms. “It’s my second Amendment rights.” I am not impressed with the concept that everyone has the right to buy all the arms they want.

The killing at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado will be a milestone event. Now crazy people will see that they can do their deeds at theaters and shopping centers without fear of retribution.

It would be a battle to amend their “rights.” Gerry Gray, a Canadian, posted this explanation of their limits to weapon access in his country. His comments can be read at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1057&message=42083981

I shouldn’t get involved because I live in Canada but look at us. Our gun laws are tightening at the whim of government. In Canada……….
You cannot get a carry permit for a handgun for the purpose of self defense.
It is against the law to have tasers or mace for self defense.
Handguns with 4 inch barrels and smaller are prohibited.
Certain calibers are prohibited. ===== .25 for example
Rifles or shotguns barrel length smaller than 18 inches are prohibited.
Automatics of any kind are prohibited.
A citizen cannot carry a handgun on the street. etc etc etc

I think USA is in real danger of going the same route as Australia, UK, Canada…..
Some interesting youtube for USA……..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbx08fbb-L4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfTzPfdzFBY&feature=related

America’s Love of Guns

No one is concerned about the consequences of allowing everyone to own multiple weapons even those who are not fit psychologically, mentally, or physically to handle the responsibility.

It wasn’t too long ago that Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was the target of an attack by a deranged gunman. Everyone remembers the tragedy at Columbine High School in Littlerock, Colorado. Now 71 people are killed or wounded by another madman. Still no one says, “Enough.” The American Bar Association posts on its website “The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the world.” Bowing down to the Second Amendment and the NRA is an inexplicable behavior.

The Constitution was written in 1787. What were the weapons of 1776 and still in use in 1787? Artillery and Gun boats??? Wrong!!! The historically correct answer is: Flintlock pistols and Flintlock Muskets.

There were no cars, no telephones and no railroads. The industrial revolution was not even an idea. So today in the 21st century we hold this document, the Constitution, as if it was handed down by Moses. Unless you think the country will be the victim of a new king or a dictator what exactly is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Precisely why would anyone need to own 2 Glock pistols, a semi-automatic rifle, a shot-gun and 6,000 rounds of ammunition? Well, there might be a reason – you want to kill a theater full of people for no particular reason.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Surprises Everyone

ObamaCare Lives

How could Chief Justice John Roberts have voted with the liberal justices in favor of Obama care? Charles Krauthammer has written a piece for the National Review contending that the “Commerce Clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers [has been] reaffirmed.” “Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained.” He suggests that Roberts was more concerned with the Court’s reputation than the outcome of this case. I disagree.

George Will, also writing in the National Review offered similar analysis.

We may never know Roberts’ thinking. Considering the far reaching consequences of his (Roberts) decision I cannot believe that he would not be more concerned with the impact this law will have on almost every American.

John Roberts said the law was legal under the right of the Federal government’s power to tax. The Obama administration denied the penalty against the non-insured is a tax. Roberts obviously had to search out his justification for voting in favor of the law. It must have come as a great surprise in the White House when they heard Roberts’ reasoning.

One thing is obvious. The media proved that even their smartest commentators could not conjure the outcome nor explain the logic of John Roberts.

Religion or Government – Which Laws Prevail?

Does the First Amendment permit religions to ignore secular law?

I was watching a Diagnosis Murder television show this evening. You may recall that is the Dick Van Dyke program where he plays a doctor who solves crimes. In this particular episode a Catholic priest refuses to tell anyone including the police who committed a murder. His reason is that his knowledge is the result of a “confession.” I was astonished that he held the position that he is sworn to keep all confessions private.

Then I Google the question, “Can Catholic priests reveal confessed crimes to the police?” Apparently I am mis-informed; it is an accurate fact that “confessions” are never to be revealed. Perhaps that explains the reason that priests who are child abusers were not reported to the police. The priests simply “confessed” their sins.

We all know how that turned out. Still, the laws regarding religion seem to disregard society’s right to law enforcement.

If you are an Orthodox Jewish family and a relative dies under suspicious circumstances the law requires an autopsy. Will an autopsy be preformed against Jewish law?

How will America’s response to Sharia Law be handled? I contend that when religious law conflicts with government law, the government prevails. How will the Supreme Court handle this?

In Mexicali, a haven for broken lives

An article in the Los Angeles Times titled “A Heaven for broken lives” is really meant to stir my sympathy for people who have broken our immigration laws. The article details stories of deported Mexicans who entered the United States illegally and subsequently committed crimes. The article was extended for an additional two pages and the print version included supporting photography.

The laws may be flawed but they are in place because a majority in the congress voted them into practice. The current administration has even tried to show empathy by not fully enforcing the law and only deporting those who commit crimes.

The error in our law enforcement is that employers of illegal aliens are rarely punished. Rigorous enforcement of current laws would end this tragic situation. “Bleeding hearts” in America will use this article as proof of our misguided legal system.

I don’t blame those who try to sneak into the country. I would do the same thing if I was living in a poor Latin American country. I blame our government for not enforcing the law.

Santorum suspends GOP presidential campaign

Reported in an AP story April 10, 2012 2:16 PM EDT. This is the news that Romney was hoping would come soon. Santorum scared me because of his strong religious convictions. He advocated a strong link between the government and his church. That would end the religious freedom that is a hallmark of our society.

Rick Santorum is Pulling the GOP Too Far to the Right

He is a sincere man who is clearly outside the mainstream of American opinion on the place of religion in our society. He wants religion to participate in government and direct everyone’s behavior. He couldn’t be more wrong. The First Amendment to the Constitution specifically says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Those are the very first words of that amendment.

From The Week magazine

Rick Santorum may be leading Mitt Romney in the polls, said Jennifer Rubin in WashingtonPost.com, but the sweatervested Pennsylvanian reminded us this week of why the GOP would “get slaughtered with Santorum as the nominee.”

In a speech on President Obama’s energy policy, the devout Catholic veered off into an attack on Obama’s “phony theology” that, he later explained, “elevates the earth above man.” Then Santorum set off a fresh controversy by saying he opposes free prenatal testing for pregnant women because it can lead to abortions of fetuses with birth defects. With Santorum heading the Republican ticket this November, one GOP senator moaned this week, “we’d lose 35 states,” and the House of Representatives, too. Santorum’s social conservatism would be less problematic if he weren’t so abrasive, said David Kuhn in ReaIClearPolitics.com. But he has compared the battle to defeat President Obama to the struggle against Hitler in World War II, and this week, a tape surfaced of Santorum telling a crowd in 2008 that “Satan has his sights on the United States of America.” This fire-and-brimstone rhetoric is clearly helping Santorum with the social conservatives who vote in GOP primaries, but it’s a major turnoff to “the independent voters who elect American presidents.”

Santorum’s appeal to these voters is not hard to understand, said Harold Meyerson in The Washington Post. His worldview “summons the ghosts of religious and patriarchal orders that once regulated much of working-class life,” for which many conservatives are deeply nostalgic.

But Americans also value personal freedom, said Conor Friedersdorf in TheAtlantic.com. Are voters really going to hand the presidency to a man who wants to criminalize abortion even in the case of incest and rape, opposes contraception even for married couples, and famously equated homosexuality with “man-ondog” sex? Republican presidential candidates don’t have to be Ron Paul libertarians, said Philip Klein in WashingtonExaminer.com, but Santorum seems “actively hostile” to the idea that people have a right to make their own moral decisions. Nominating a smug scold who wants to “lecture Americans about their sex lives” would “ensure a Democratic rout in November.”

“Santorum’s style of social conservatism is deeply American,” said Rich Lowry in National Review, despite what “the media and political elite” would have you believe. He walks the walk, as the father of seven children, including one with a serious birth defect that often leads other couples to choose abortion. His “passionate intensity” plays very well with blue-collar voters, many of whom share Santorum’s belief that issues of family and culture are inextricably bound up with “the struggles of the working class.”

Santorum should probably avoid “the weeds of theological debate,” said William McGurn in The Wall Street Journal. He should also stop criticizing contraception. But the core of his appeal is that he’s a “conviction politician,” and even those who might not share all his views “are hungry for a nominee who does not bend with the wind.” Perhaps so, said David Weigel in Slate.com. But even Santorum now realizes that as a front-runner, he needs to tone down the harsh rhetoric. “Santorum 2.0” is saying that gays should be “treated with respect,” and noting that as a senator, he voted for two international aid programs that provided contraception. His problem is that, as the 2008 “Satan” speech illustrates, Santorum 1.0 has left a mother lode of extremist positions and off-the-wall statements for the media and his opponents to mine. And the digging “has only just begun.”