Voting Matters: Electoral College Process Summarized

I CAN'T WAIT FOR TUESDAY!!!

If you're like me you're getting a little sick of all the political posts, commercials etc. and I am a political science major! But this does affect all of us and is important so please keep reading. Many people I've talked to think their vote doesn't matter because of the electoral college and so they're not going to vote. YOUR VOTE DOES MATTER.
To briefly explain, each state has as many electoral votes as the combined number of Senators and Representatives. These electoral votes are given to the party that gets the most votes in each state. In all states but Maine and Nebraska it is a winner take all process - so even if your party got one more vote in your state, your party would get ALL the electoral votes. In 2008 62% of eligible voters voted, that leaves 38% (more than 1 out of 3 Americans) that didn't have their voices heard. A presidential candidate needs 270 electoral votes out of the 538 to win. If neither side gets 270 votes the results are determined by the popular vote (determined by the House).
So lets make this 2012 turnout the biggest yet. If we all go vote and encourage our friends to vote, each state's results could dramatically change. States like New York and California could actually turn red (meaning voting majority Republican). And if we take time to also study about and vote for conservative state Representatives and Senators we'll be better represented at the state level.
Of course 100% of eligible voters won't vote this election because many of them don't want to, are apathic, or haven't registered yet (Hopefully they'll go register to be prepared for next time). We always have a choice - if we want to be apathetic and not vote then we really shouldn't complain when we don't like a new law, get taxed too much, are charged too high of a price at the gas pump, or our living prices keep going up. If you made it this far, thanks for reading!

Elijah Verhagen
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_current.php

To Gary Johnson voters, Ron Paul or other write-in-voters, the supreme court consequences.

http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/11/03/to-gary-johnson-voters-ron-paul-other-write-in-voters-supreme-court-consequences/

The Purist Vote: How Obama’s Foes Might Extend His Legacy for Decades
November 1, 2012
By Matthew D. Carling, Esq.

(or) The Purist Vote: American Conservatives Playing Russian Roulette

Every four years, American voters eagerly line up to choose their favorite candidate for President. We brim with hope for a leader who sees the world like we do—someone a lot like us. But once our ideal contender is eliminated from the field, disappointment often turns to disgust. Voters by the thousands remove themselves from the political battlefield and refuse to participate further. It’s either my nominee or nothing.

Consoled in the belief that one vote won’t matter, the disenfranchised gently beguile themselves into apathy. Surely four more years of any single administration cannot possibly unravel the rich heritage of our nation. Others withdraw out of a need to take a moral stand, indignant over the flaws they would otherwise feel they are endorsing with their vote. Some even choose strategic revenge, hoping to punish less-pure conservatives with four more years under a stanch liberal president — a small price to pay if the lesson finally awakens such “useful idiots” from their folly. After all, how much damage can one president leave that can’t be undone by his successor?

These might be valid points except for one detail. A president’s most lasting legacy is not usually the bills he signs into law, his executive orders or even the wars over which he presides. It is his unique role in shaping the entire third branch of government, the Supreme Court, which has power to overrule the others. Indeed, his nominations to the bench can alter our society for generations.

Consider George W. Bush. With the retirement of Justice O’Connor and the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush reshaped the Court with his nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both thoughtful and mostly conservative jurists. Whatever Bush’s faults, these two acts could benefit our nation immensely for generations to come. President Obama, on the other hand, countered by replacing two activist jurists (Souter & Stevens) with two more: Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor, each fully in step with the current Administration’s societal and political agenda. These appointments have not disappointed the progressive left.

How much does this matter? For most people it depends on the issue. Until recently, for millions of Americans in major cities across the nation, owning a handgun was severely restricted if not banned entirely. For decades, Second Amendment advocates had wistfully dreamed of the Supreme Court striking such laws, but were afraid to bring forth a case. What if they lost? Might the Court instead end up nullifying the Second Amendment? On June 28, 2010, with Bush’s appointees the Court finally acknowledged the original intent: that no government, whether federal, state or local, may deny a citizen the right to keep and bear arms.[i] The victory, however, was a narrow one—only 5 to 4. If one more left leaning justice had been appointed, it would have gone the other way. Dissenting, Justice Stevens argued that owning a personal firearm was not a “liberty” interest protected by the Constitution. Likewise, Justice Stephen Breyer stated, “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.” With a single vote, this suppressive notion would have been the majority opinion.

In just the last decade, this same narrow margin has preserved school choice laws at the state level, but unfortunately tipped the other way and failed to roll back eminent domain abuse. The constitution’s safety in the court is fragile indeed.

With four Justices over age 70—and perhaps a mere pizza away from a heart attack—it’s likely that the next president will leave a lasting legacy by nominating at least one, and quite possibly four Supreme Court justices. The vital question for Americans is whether the current president will continue to appoint activist judges who will subordinate the individual, his rights and his property to the whims of government

FDR appointee William O. Douglas, whose crusades in the Supreme Court spannednine presidential terms.

Just how enduring is the impact of these appointments? It seems that in every election cycle the popular candidates revisit the proverbial issue of “reproductive choice,” that ubiquitous notion espoused in the 1973 landmark decision of Roe v. Wade[ii] (7-2). Yet neither its critics nor champions attribute any role in its legacy to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, FDR appointed Justice William O. Douglas in 1939 who helped form the majority in that ruling. Justice Douglas served on the High Court for 36 years—a span encompassing nine presidential terms. Who else left America a legacy shrouded in Roe’s sophistry? President Eisenhower (Justices Brennan & Stewart), President Johnson (Justice Marshall), and President Nixon (Justices Burger, Blackmun, and Powell). Only Justices White (Kennedy) and Rehnquist (Nixon) dissented.

In other words, the presidential elections of 1936, 1952, 1964, and 1968 still reverberate in the legal, moral and political debates of 2012!

But what if Landon had beaten FDR in 1936? What if enough voters instead preferred Senator Robert Taft of Ohio over Ike? Looking to maintain the status quo, would our political landscape be different if Humphrey nixed Nixon? An altered Supreme Court makeup would indeed change the weighty deliberations in barbershops across the nation.

Consider the legacy of Justice Brennan (Eisenhower) and his preference to ignore the original intent behind the writing and enactment of the Constitution. In Torcaso v. Watkins[iii] he stated, “A too literal quest for the advice of the Founding Fathers upon the issues of [First Amendment] cases seems to me futile and misdirected.” He argued for a “living constitution” disregarding history and precedent for a more liberal approach that reflects modern “needs” through a constitution that the Justices themselves write. Justice Brennan retired from the Court in 1990 after authoring numerous activist opinions that undermined original intent and eroded state sovereignty rights. How do you “Like Ike” now?

Buchanan’s 1856 presidential campaign: The unwitting seed of the infamous Slaughterhouse ruling and its modern consequences. Today, such seeds are more strategic.

But such presidential legacies reach even further. In his book, Death Grip, chief constitutional litigator at the Goldwater Institute, Clint Bolick, illustrates how judicial mischief can last well over a century.[iv] In a decision known as the Slaughter-House Cases[v], New Orleans butchers challenged a state law written shortly after the Civil War that granted an exclusive monopoly over meat packing to a single favored corporation. The monopoly devastated competitors. Yet in 1873, the Supreme Court refused to declare the legislation unconstitutional. Instead, in a rare 5 to 4 decision the court held to a narrow interpretation of the freshly minted 14th amendment that neutered its “privileges or immunities” clause. The original intent was the notion that all state and local governments should be prevented from abridging those sacred “privileges or immunities” of citizenship that protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Bolick makes a powerful case that this included preserving one’s freedom to earn an honest living without arbitrary infringement. Yet by a one vote margin the court gutted the original meaning. The majority justices were appointed by Presidents Buchanan (1), Lincoln (2), and Grant (2). As a consequence of this 139 year old decision, most courts are still reluctant to overturn outlandish regulations that trample economic liberty. The result? A great deal of the absurd overregulation and meddling in business that we see today. Yet this bitter fruit of the court was planted in Buchanan’s presidential election in 1856!

While contemplating the doctrine of judicial review, Thomas Jefferson stated, “[t]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”[vi] Five years later he noted, that “[the judicial branch] of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum [at one’s pleasure], by sapping and mining, slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”[vii] Just one more left leaning appointment to the Supreme Court could easily leave us with a lasting legacy that nearly obliterates the rights and responsibilities that come with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, even President Reagan made mistakes in selecting nominees to the bench, as noted with the appointments of swing justices O’Connor and Kennedy. But with the acute heating of the culture war in recent decades, more careful scrutiny is now applied on both the political left and right before any nominee is ever presented to the senate.All sides recognize today that the Supreme Court has become ground zero in the battle to shape America’s future.

A new high-water mark may now have arrived with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare. For all the drama leading up to it, perhaps the most disconcerting point was made in a mere photo caption in Forbes, stating: “The most powerful man in America: Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.” Although it turned out to be Justice Roberts, the caution remains. When a single “swing” judge bears this much power, it should give us all pause. With the sting of Roberts’ betrayal, rest assured that the pre-game scrutiny applied to all Republican judicial short lists is now stricter than ever before. Of course, we must first have a president on the same team.

So, while at some point your favorite presidential candidate may no longer be a contender, consider the ramifications of the next appointment to the Supreme Court. Then multiply that by four.

This sobering thought might just persuade Americans to rally behind an imperfect, yet still more conservative candidate than the alternative.

H.L. Mencken said, “[a]s democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” Sarcasm aside, perhaps we might instead discipline ourselves to take a longer view rather than throw away our vote for the next half-century of judges and their potentially disastrous rulings.

Meanwhile, the many conservatives who despised George W. Bush’s obvious shortcomings will still have grandchildren thankful for at least one of his Supreme Court nominations. By contrast, try to imagine for a moment the two appointments we would have received from Al Gore. When I look at the 2012 ballot, I do not see Mitt Romney, Ron Paul (or whoever) vs. Barack Obama. I see Clarence Thomas vs. Elena Kagan. My conscious does not require that my vote endorse a candidate in his utter entirety. My vote is a strategic one—to safeguard the traditional common law protection of the individual, his property, and his freedom. What will you do with your vote?

Elections matter – especially, especially this one. For many reasons, lovers of liberty must NOT give Obama another four years. The possibility of his appointing one to four new activist Justices to the highest court of the land is a supreme rallying cry to stop him.

To Gary Johnson voters, Ron Paul Supporters, and other ‘write-in’ voters: Every patriot vote is needed to secure liberty in America. YOUR vote is needed to stop Obama. Join us. Join us in preserving liberty. Join us in preserving the United States Constitution. Join us in restoring our nation. Join us in securing VICTORY for America by supporting Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Mitt Romney's Vision For America

This is a great video of Mitt Romney's vision for America. If he is elected we won't have to worry about losing our freedom of religion. He'll work to protect the sanctity of marriage and strive to ensure that our retirement accounts are there when we need them, etc.

Mitt loves America as much as we do and, unlike Obama, Mitt's proud of it. 

Mitt Romney Vs Obama 2012

This is a very clear concise, and well-made animation that helps show the contrast between these two men and expresses why Mitt Romney is not only qualified for taking on the job as President of the United States, but also why we desperately need someone with his kind of experience right now. 

Green Waste: Another Obama-Backed Energy Company Fails

This video is yet another report of the huge waste of public money that has occurred under Obama's direction. It isn't a conincidence that so many hundreds of millions of dollars were sent to these companies (supposedly to advance Green energy) and then they mysteriously go out of business. Why would existing, and supposedly sound companies (otherwise why would you give them money?) receive multimillion dollar shots in the arm and then go out of business? What happened to the money? Isn't this simply another example of Chicago style cronyism where targeted companies get huge amounts of money, the money disappears, and the company goes out of business. Someone gets the money. Whether it be banks (owned by friends of Obama) that hold the paper on the company, or distributions of the money are made to the shareholders and then the business fails - someone always gets the money.

HUGE, Enthusiastic Crowds Gathering For Romney/Ryan

Despite what the news and media outlets have been trying to force us to believe, millions of Americans are not just supporting Romney begrudgingly, or as a choice between the "lesser of two evils" or just because they don't like Obama, or because of race or sex or age. Literally millions of Americans are feeling the patriotism and enthusiasm and confidence and momentum that the Romney/Ryan ticket is spreading across our great nation. People believe in America, people have not given up on what America stands for and what our founders envisioned for us. Americans are excited for change, but not just a hollow hope of change which they voted for in 2008 - this time people have been looking at the history of these two men and know they can count on the right change coming from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan  

This video is inspiring and gives you the chills to see such huge crows incredibly enthusiastic about supporting Gov Romney and Rep Ryan and wanting to bring back the America we once knew. 

Assault weapons ban could cause problems for Obama

Debate answer on assault weapons ban could cause problems for Obama
By William La Jeunesse

Published November 01, 2012 by FoxNews.com

President Obama may have been tossing a bone to his base, but one answer in the second presidential debate could come back to haunt him with a key voter group -- gun owners.

When asked what the administration has done or plans to do to limit assault weapons at the Oct. 16 debate, Obama said part of the solution to gun violence "is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced."

That comment caught fire with gun owners.

"If there are undecided voters who put the Second Amendment as their first issue, then certainly the president's remark about bringing back any type of gun ban is going to chase away those voters," said Joe Eaton, a regional coordinator with the Buckeye Firearms Association in Ohio.

One of those is independent voter Robert Brewer from Cincinnati.

When he heard the president's renewed support for an assault weapons ban, Brewer said, "I was thinking I was born in a country (where) I had a right to keep and bear arms and I don't know what he's talking about. It goes against the Constitution, which gives me the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed."

Pro-gun activists never considered President Obama an ally, after he campaigned in favor of such a gun ban in 2008. Once in the White House, however, Obama did not pursue it. After the mass shooting in Colorado, Obama aides said that the president supports the ban that expired in 2004. But the president had not called for reinstating it until the recent debate.

In Colorado, another important battleground state, Rich Wyatt heard the president loud and clear.

"He wants to do something that is complete violation of our Second Amendment rights and that's going to hurt him when it comes to swing states like Colorado," said Wyatt, owner of the Gunsmoke gun store outside of Denver.

While gun owners may not consider Obama their friend on firearms issues, legislatively he hasn't done anything serious to hurt them. His comment, though, could wake a sleeping giant in a few key places.

Nationwide, there are 90 million gun owners in the U.S., but in the eight critical swing states, already this year more than 2.1 million potential voters bought guns.

Some bought for personal protection, others for target shooting. But in those eight states -- Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin -- 2 million hold hunting licenses. That includes 413,710 in Ohio, and 288,086 in Colorado, two states critical to the president's re-election.

"I am definitely concerned," said new mother Stephanie Thomas, as her baby was sleeping in a carrier on a gun display case inside Target World, an Ohio gun shop. "I wanted to come in and make my purchase before the election."

Referring to the president's proposed ban, she said, "It makes me nervous. I have three children and a home to protect."

Thomas bought a shotgun and a full case of ammo.

Passed under a Democrat-controlled Congress in 1994, the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Filled with loopholes, critics say it did little to reduce gun violence, since most crimes are committed with hand guns, not bulky rifles with long stocks and barrels.

Used mostly for hunting and target shooting, the AK-47 and AR-15, which is a civilian version of the U.S. military issue M16, these so-called assault rifles are used in fewer than 1 percent of all violent crimes in the U.S., according to studies based on Justice Department data. And despite the negative publicity surrounding these weapons, the rate of gun-related murder and manslaughter fell 11 percent from 2008 to 2010, according to federal statistics.

However, with a few exceptions, congressional Democrats support background checks at gun shows, and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines like the ones used in Aurora, Colo. Laxer gun laws, they argue, mean more homicides and suicides. They point to Ohio, where according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the firearm homicide rate now exceeds that of California. The campaign claims Ohio's firearm homicide rate surged after the Buckeye State passed a concealed-carry law allowing many gun owners to obtain a concealed-carry permit.

In the second debate, Obama said: "I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theatres don't belong on our streets." He added, "What I want is a comprehensive strategy, part of it is seeing if we get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill."

However, the president's critics say assault weapons do not differ materially from non-military style firearms. In both cases, each weapon fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger.

Anti-gun activists, though, point to assault rifles' large magazines and their ability to hold more than 10 bullets.

After the movie theater massacre in Aurora this past July, gun control advocate and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called on both Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to address how they would try to curb gun violence. Bloomberg at the time called on the White House to back a new assault weapons ban.

"Somebody's got to do something about this, and this requires particularly in a presidential year, the candidates for president of the United States to stand up and once and for all say ... 'It's time for this country to do something'," Bloomberg told CBS' "Face the Nation" in July.

Despite the president's desire to ban certain firearms, Congress is unlikely to adopt any meaningful gun controls. However, the courts are another matter. Both recent Supreme Court rulings affirming an individuals' right to own a firearm were 5-4 decisions. Additional cases limiting gun rights are making their way through the lower federal courts, and many gun experts say the next battleground for the Second Amendment is back at the Supreme Court.

In response to Obama's debate comments, the National Rifle Association came out with a new ad. It warns, "Obama put two justices on the Supreme Court who threaten our right to self-defense. Defend freedom, defeat Obama."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, who typically land on the pro-Second Amendment side of the fence, are 76. If either is replaced by an anti-gun successor, pro-gun activists fear their rights will erode.

"What worries me the most about President Obama getting re-elected is at that point we'll see the real true Barack Obama," Wyatt said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/01/debate-answer-on-assault-weapons-ban-could-cause-problems-for-obama/#ixzz2B2u21FZ3