Monday, April 21, 2014

Dems Push for a National Popular Vote

This is an old cartoon. I guess it should now say "...the most Facebook friends".  

I've posted on this subject in 2011, and now it's coming back into the forefront.  The New American and Dick Morris are reporting that the Democrats have a plan to "transform" our county's voting system, and not in a good way.  The plan is for the Electoral College to get thrown out and be replaced with the National Popular Vote.  Some states are already on board, with New York being the latest.

Unsurprisingly, the push for a National Popular Vote is being promoted by a George Soros funded election group called The Center for Voting and Democracy.  Another site to check out is National Popular Vote.

Find out the details in the articles below:

Via:  The New American

The Democrats’ Plan to Destroy Our Electoral System

Written by  

While most people aren’t aware of it, there’s a movement afoot to completely change the way we elect our president — and its success would have serious consequences for our nation’s future.
The plan is a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that would neuter the Electoral College and give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. Under this agreement, your state would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate.
The compact will take effect once enough states ratify it to constitute at least 270 electoral votes, a majority of the total 538. And with Governor Andrew Cuomo having signed a bill on April 15 making New York the 10th state party to the agreement (the District of Columbia is also on board), its 29 electoral votes bring the compact’s total up to 165, well more than halfway to the goal. The other signatory states are California, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island.
Moreover, the compact has already been passed by one house in Nevada, Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Mexico, and Oregon. Upon ratification, these states would represent 78 more votes, bringing the compact’s total to 242 — just 28 shy of activation threshold. At that point the agreement would conceivably be just one state away (Florida) from taking effect.
To many people the compact is an easy sell. What’s wrong with a popular-vote system? But as political consultant and pundit Dick Morris explained recently in a Newsmax article, there’s a reason why virtually all the compact’s proponents are leftists, with every ratifying state — and 80 percent of the one-house states — having voted for Obama. The movement is also receiving funding from radical leftist George Soros’ Center for Voting and Democracy. Morris writes:
Democrats usually see a smaller percentage of their people go to the polls than Republicans do.
Under the electoral vote system, they figure why beat the drums to get a high turnout in New York City when the state will go Democrat anyway? But, if its [sic] the popular vote that matters, the big city machines can do their thing — with devastating impact.
And think of the chances for voter fraud! Right now, the biggest cities, the ones most firmly in Democratic control (e.g. Washington DC, New York, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, etc.) are all solidly in blue states. Not only does this make it unnecessary to maximize turnouts there, but it also makes it unnecessary to promote double voting, fraudulent voting, and all the other tricks of the trade at which Democrats excel.

Additional Articles:

Here's a good article explaining why we should keep the Electoral College:


Why Keep the Electoral College?  

What Were the Founding Fathers Thinking?

"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Update 4/19: Marsha Blackburn to the Rescue; Update 3/24: Even Bill Clinton is Against It; Hurry, Somebody Call Al Gore!


Did Al Gore give his permission for the USA to hand over the internet to the United Nations?

Media Matters says that Fox News Channel is lying about Mr.Obama giving away the internet. Unfortunately, that's not true (but what else should we expect from Media Matters?).  I've been reading the same kind of information FNC is reporting on Politico, at The Heritage Foundation website and at the Wall Street Journal online.

At the present time, a non-profit organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is overseeing the internet in accordance with a contract with the US Commerce Department.  This is about to change when the USA hands over control of the internet to the United Nations in September 2015.

This can't be good.  Here's a little blurb from the Heritage article:
Challenges to the Status Quo Governance.  Despite great success, there are serious challenges to the way the Internet is currently governed. Specifically, authoritarian nations wish to implement changes to make the Internet subject to more control and oversight by government. To achieve this goal, these nations have attempted to use various U.N. bodies that are directly controlled by governments, most notably the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), to regulate the Internet.
This article says,..."The ITU ultimately serves the majority of nations which do not want a free and open Internet..." 

and this...
Revelations by Edward Snowden have only contributed to this trend toward international governance. In October 2013, various Internet stakeholders met in Uruguay and issued the Montevideo Statement,which called for “an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing.”  This is concerning: ICANN has been gaining independence from the U.S. government since its inception, but the Montevideo Statement would reverse this trend with a twist—government oversight would be strengthened—but with 193 governments, not just the U.S., looking over ICANN’s shoulder.
International Internet Idealism vs. Internet Freedom. Broadening international governance of the Internet may sound like a fair and appropriate course of action. But such a path will allow bad actors to greatly constrain human rights and freedoms. The irony of the Montevideo Statement is that, in trying to combat balkanization of the Internet and Internet surveillance, it makes ICANN more vulnerable to autocratic and despotic regimes, which use broad and repressive censorship and surveillance programs. 
Here's a little blurb from the Wall Street Journal article:
The action had been debated among technologists and policy makers, but the prospect of the U.S. relinquishing control concerns some businesses because of the potential for censorship."If you hand over domain-name registration to someone who doesn't want certain classes of domains registered, then you're setting up a censorship structure," said Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents businesses.  In recent years U.S. policy makers have pushed back against calls from nations including China and Russia for the U.N. and ITU to have a greater role in overseeing the structure of the Web. U.S. officials have previously argued that such an arrangement would lead to the repression of free speech and the Balkanization of the Internet.
Just the mention of China and Russia having a say in the internet sends "censorship" chills down my spine.

Does the following make you feel any better?
According to Larry Strickling, administrator for the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration the new governance model must ensure that Icann is free from government influence. The plan must also fulfill several other conditions, such as preserving the security and stability of the Internet while keeping it open and free from censorship.
I didn't think so.

This issue has been on the table for a long time.  According to some of the articles, the US has fought back against giving away control of the internet, but apparently the Obama Administration isn't too worried about it.  Can he really be so naive or is this just one more way to knock down the influence of the United States in the world?  I think it's the latter.  I'm betting this is just one more item checked off Mr. Obama's bucket list.

UPDATE 3/24:

Former President Bill Clinton is against the handing over the the internet by the US.  I doubt Mr. Obama cares about Mr. Clinton's opinion.  I wonder if Mrs. Clinton will put her 2 cents in on the matter.

Bill Clinton Opposes Internationalizing Internet Control


UPDATE 4/19:

Hopefully, this puts an end to the internet give-away:




More reading:

U.S. Plans to Give Up Oversight of Web Domain Manager (March 2014)


Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Marco Rubio Beats Down Tom Harkin and His Cuban Love Story

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) disappointed me when he joined the Gang of 8 with their Senate proposal on immigration.  I couldn't believe my Senator, the guy I supported so vigorously on this blog, could hook up with the likes of Chucky Schumer.  He's backed away from it since, but I'm not sure his change of heart has changed many disappointed hearts who had high hopes for him.

Today I saw this video and felt that pang of pride for Senator Rubio again, the one I felt way back when he first ran for U.S. Senate.

Enjoy his beat down of Democrat Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who had recently finished a speech on his "wonderful" trip to Cuba.  It's great.


Video via:  NewsAttackNow

More reading:
Miami Herald