Tag Archives: elections

Aiken: Exactly What We Don’t Need In Politics

Perhaps when our time is relegated to the history books it will be remembered as the “Era of Self-Important Divisiveness,” or something to that effect. Truth be told, there have been few times in the history of our nation when politics was so basely divisive. I say basely because although politics in the time of our Founders and Framers was combative, it was so on an intellectual level; a battlefield of higher thinking, as it were. Today, our politics is centered on the self-important stature of those whose only claim to narcissism is the falsely elevated self-esteem foisted upon them by the Progressive operatives who have commandeered the education system.

Today, our society lauds the illiterate rap artist and the talentless faux-beauties of Hollywood; thugs with a cursory grasp of rhythm but not music, and surgically enhanced spotlight seekers completely devoid of talent. Today, our culture’s media places more importance in the political opinions of an American Idol runner-up, than those who served in government during an era when the Iron Curtain fell and the Soviet Union disappeared from the maps of the world.

So, it is no surprise that our narrative-controlling media (or at least that’s what they strive for) would be wasting the precious “attention span time” of the non-engaged and no- and low-information American public with the candidacy of Clay Aiken, nominee in the North Carolina 2nd congressional district election. Not to take anything away from Mr. Aiken’s musical talents (he is a talented singer), but to quote a superior musician, Frank Zappa, “There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

The Washington Times is reporting:

“Democrat congressional candidate Clay Aiken has reportedly deleted a tweet in which he fantasized about punching conservative author Ann Coulter ‘in the face.’

“‘Anyone else watching @piersmorgan want to punch Ann Coulter in the face?’ the former American Idol runner-up tweeted in October 2012…

“Mr. Aiken won the North Carolina Democrat nomination last week with a lead of less than 400 votes, just one day after his main contender, Keith Crisco, was found dead in his home.”

For a moment let’s skip the embarrassing fact that Mr. Aiken only beat a dead guy by 400 votes. One has to wonder if he would have lost if he were on the ballot in Chicago, what with all the dead people who vote there.

I could ask a question here. Is this the type of person that Democrats want to have representing them in Congress; a person who advocates for violence against those with whom he disagrees, even as he preaches acceptance and tolerance for “protected” demographics in our society? But the answer here is one we already understand: purporting inclusion and non-violence while advocating for the beating of those with which you disagree is okay if you are a Progressive. It is a hate crime if you are anything but.

Mr. Aiken didn’t stop there, either. In referencing Ms. Coulter a second time, he tweeted:

“Since Ann Coulter says it’s ok 2 b offensive when describing people, let’s ‘C’ what words we can use 2 describe her huff.to/P8moE7”

An obvious reference to a word that gets guys slapped squarely across the face when heard by females.

Caustic indignation has become the “new normal” for the Progressive Left. They have always used the tactics of “divide and conquer” and “slash and burn” in their politics, but in the days past they did it with much more subtlety, preferring the artful spin of an issue (the issuance of disinformation and manipulative propaganda) to the overt brutality of arrogant and belligerent calls for violence, whether under the banner of the “rainbow flag” or not. Today’s Progressive activists – and, evidently, congressional candidates – seem to have no problem advocating for violence against those with whom they disagree; advocating for the denial of free speech rights for those who do not obediently follow their shallow vision of what a diverse society should be.

Our nation’s motto is E Pluribus Unum: “Out of Many, One.” In this simple statement we can understand what the United States of America was supposed to be…and what it is not today. Our nation was supposed to be a nation that embraced the differences in all the peoples who wanted to shed their labels and become Americans, simply Americans; not hyphenated Americans or protected Americans, just Americans. In the vision of e pluribus unum, our nation would see no differences among its citizenry based on color, economic wherewithal, religion, gender or profession; it would only see a melting pot of people who came to this land to be free.

Our nation was designed to be a safe haven for all people, a safe haven from the oligarchs and the despots, the totalitarians, dictators and fascists; a safe haven where people could worship freely, freely express their beliefs (both societal and political), and have the freedom to pursue happiness, both in spirit and in commerce. Today, we have transformed from a Representative Constitutional Republic to a nation governed by an elitist oligarchy, hell-bent on attaining and then retaining power, influence and riches derived from We the People. And We the People, for our apathy, for our self-importance, for our stupidity, have brought it upon ourselves for our abdication of responsibility to protect the Charters of Freedom; for our abdication of responsibility to hold those elected to office accountable for their malfeasance and treachery.

We have true scandals facing our nation today, scandals that, in the long run, will be found to be criminal and actionable in nature, yet our media decides Clay Aiken’s “sissy-fit” with Anne Coulter is news. Then, what can we expect from a mainstream media where one network president, CNN’s Jeff Zucker, said,

“We’re not going to be shamed into [covering the Benghazi scandal] by others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums to shame other news organizations into covering something.”

Is the assassination of a US ambassador and his security team by an enemy aligned with the group that slaughtered 2,975 people on September 11, 2001 not worth covering; not worth examining until all the questions are answered? Should we be satisfied with the determinations and findings of a “stacked-deck” investigative panel more concerned with political vanity than truth?

We the People are less concerned about how Mr. Aiken is, well, “just all tied up in little pretty knots” about Ann Coulter’s comments, and much more concerned that half of our government doesn’t care that:

▪ an act of war was perpetrated on an American ambassador and his security team in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, and our President, his administration and his party’s congressional contingent overtly seek to cover-up Executive Branch complicity;

▪ the IRS was illegally targeting political advocacy groups that represented easily half of the electorate’s political views;

▪ the Veteran’s Administration has been cooking the books for the sole purpose of gleaning taxpayer-funded “bonus money” from the Treasury while veterans died – and lay dying – waiting for basic treatment;

▪ the Department of Justice – run by an overt racist – not only spied on journalists in order to intimidate the First Amendment protections of the press, but has routinely refused to enforce laws based on politics and racism;

▪ the singular “achievement” of this administration – the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare (and you thought I was going to say the fundamental transformation of the United States of America) – is robbing our citizens of jobs, even as the administration’s penchant for acquiescing to global governance literally extracts massive amounts of wealth from our shores.

But then, Progressives are in control of the mainstream media and the news narratives; narratives sympatico with those on Pennsylvania Avenue who are more concerned about the “fundamental transformation of America,” than with doing the jobs for which they were elected. That said, is it any wonder Mr. Obama always finds out about what his administration is doing from the “news media reports”?

Going back to Frank Zappa for a moment, a very talented musician in my book,

“I believe that, in a [constitutional republic], government exists because (and only as long as) individual citizens give it a ‘temporary license to exist’ – in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a [constitutional republic] you own the government – it doesn’t own you. Along with this comes a responsibility to ensure that individual actions, in the pursuit of a personal destiny, do not threaten the well-being of others while the ‘pursuit’ is in progress.”

Maybe it’s time for Mr. Aiken to take some private lessons in government, philosophy and civility. Too bad Mr. Zappa isn’t available.

An Oligarchy and Not a Republic? No Kidding?

The Washington Times is reporting that a study by Princeton and Northwestern Universities has determined that the fundamental transformation of the United States of America has already taken place. We have transitioned from a Republic (as our Framers intended) to an oligarchy:

“America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic-republic envision by Founding Fathers. Rather, it’s taken a turn down elitist lane and become a country led by a small dominant class comprised of powerful members who exert total control over the general population — an oligarchy, said a new study jointly conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities.

“One concluding finding in the study: The US government now represents the rich and powerful, not the average citizen, United Press International reported…

“Researchers then concluded that US policies are formed more by special interest groups, than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class, UPI said.”

Really? Who would ever have thought?! Oh, that’s right, we “whackoids” and “domestic terrorists” among us; those warning about the encroachment of dominant government into our private lives. We have been (first politely and now with a twinge of anger) voicing this ongoing event for quite a while, first as individuals and now in organized groups.

This is what happens when Progressives capture the message-crafting media. This is what happens when we pass amendments to the US Constitution that destroy the protections built in for the individual States. This is what happens when factions and big money special interest groups reign supreme in Washington, DC. This is what happens when the no- and low-information voters decide elections; our country’s well-being hanging in the balance.

Whether or not it is too late to change anything is a matter of debate. Personally, I am inclined to fight for the country and the capitalist economic system that literally created the first Middle Class ever to exist in the history of man.

To that end, there is an organization that has developed a solution – or at least the vehicle to achieve a solution – for the manipulation of the no- and low-information voters by the special interests and political opportunists currently transforming our Republic; the oligarchs, if you will.

Founders Alliance USA*, a non-partisan group, has developed VoterFYI.

The VoterFYI initiative is for voters (and no- and low-information voters are included here) who are dissatisfied with the current political system and parties. The initiative matches voters to the strongest candidate on any given ballot, whose positions are compatible with the voters’ highest values using machine intelligence. Unlike the position paper model of think tanks, the VoterFYI process is more personalized by leveraging advances in social technology and artificial intelligence to match voters to their candidate, make recommendations on issues based on the data that is input, and save precious time.

Part of the pain of transitioning from the most promising form of government (the American constitutional Republic) to the failed tenets of oligarchical Socialism is the destruction of prosperity; the equalization of society by the denial of opportunity.

There has been very little economic growth for the last five years. The “recovery summer” has come and gone with the worst recovery ever recorded. In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of men do. Because they’re feeling acute pain monetarily, the sleeping giant that is “we the people” are waking up to the disparity and recognizing the incompetence of both political parties. It is at this point that Progressives and oligarchic elites intend to swoop in with an expansion of the entitlement state; the nanny state, where government advances to control even more of our lives than it already does.

The brilliance of the VoterFYI project comes in its ability to elevate the issues above the political parties and above the misinformation and deception of the terminal power-seekers. It allows each individual to formulate and refine their understanding of the issues, thus circumventing the Madison Avenue political rhetoric that only well-connected money can buy. Once the populace understands the issues – and how they, themselves, feel about the issues – no intentionally contrived message of spin by either established political camp can deceive the voters any longer…and this includes the no- and low-information voters.

Find out more about VoterFYI by clicking here.

I don’t know about you, but I am unwilling to stand by, doing nothing more than complaining, as Progressives and political opportunists finalize the fundamental transformation of the United States. I am choosing to actually do something about it. How about you?

“The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ~ Patrick Henry

* In the interest of transparency, the author sits on the board of directors for Founders Alliance USA.

Executive Order Creates Election Commission

Obama_signingPresident Obama signed an executive order last week creating the nine member Presidential Commission on Election Administration, a move he signaled as a priority during the State of the Union speech.

The Commission, co-chaired by Bob Bauer, who was Obama’s lead counsel in his 2012 campaign, and Ben Ginsberg, who held the same role in the Romney camp is tasked with studying polling locations, voter access, voting machine technology and much more.

The executive order defines the mission of the panel as follows:

“The Commission shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay, and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles in casting their ballots, such as members of the military, overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency.”

Though a very small percentage of polling locations experienced delays on Election Day 2012, locations with arguably the highest turnout in the nation had few problems to note. Minneapolis, for example, had some polling locations with more than 100% turnout, yet Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie reported the day ran smoothly. Ritchie said of the estimated 3 million people statewide (MN had an estimated 76% voter turnout), “I think people had a really good experience.”

The debate about long lines and extensive wait times rears its head every few years, but the math simply doesn’t add up. Following the 2010 census, in accordance with a law enacted by Congress in 1975, polling locations were reviewed in each state and redistricting took place. Each Congressional district, state senate district and other districts were evaluated and potentially changed, and then approved by the states. The redistricted lines are based on census numbers so that each polling location has approximately the same number of residents, and therefore, approximately the same number of eligible voters.

Though the President’s new commission intends to study and recommend changes related to the “number, location, management, operation, and design of polling places,” “ballot simplicity and voter education,” and the “efficient management of voter rolls and poll books,” there is no mention of any attempt to dissuade voter fraud. In fact, the stated purpose of the commission is to “improve the experience of all voters.” As we have learned in the last few election cycles, not all voters abide by election laws.

Voter fraud is rampant in the United States. For a few examples, click here: EJ Haust Voter Fraud and here: Voter Fraud Still an Issue

Each state has authority over its election practices including ballots, technology, and polling locations, but the recommendations of this new commission are “intended to serve as a best practices guide for state and local election officials…” according to Josh Earnest, Deputy Press Secretary for the White House. That could prove valuable to activists seeking to make voting controlled by the executive branch.

Though the commission won’t have authority to directly override state election rules, its recommendations could conceivably be used as a tool by the Department of Justice to use when persuading judges to impose changes at the state level. The President is essentially giving credibility to a group of nine of his friends to create a “study” that will later be seen as the authority on election best practices. What Secretary of State, governor, state legislature, or judge will have the instinct to deny recommendations by this panel of experts?

The commission is required to submit its final report 6 months following its first public meeting. It will have staff, though none of the nine members will have a salary. All members will be allowed reimbursement of travel expenses.

Follow me on Twitter!

Dems Gain the Voter ID Edge, Again

Screen Shot 2013-01-09 at 2.17.44 PM

The pendulum in the war between liberals and conservatives continues to swing with Democrats regaining the voter ID edge in the aftermath of the 2012 election.  According to Mike Flynn of Breitbart, he wrote today that this shouldn’t be a surprise.

new survey by Gallup shows Democrats regaining their edge in party identification over the GOP. In 2012, 47% of Americans identified as Democrat or lean-Democrat. 42% identified as GOP or lean-GOP. In 2011, the two parties were even, with each claiming 45% of Americans. In 2008, however, Democrats held a 12-point edge in voter identification.

The results shouldn’t be too much of a surprise, given the Democrat victories in November. The edge, however, came from Independents leaning more toward the Democrats than the GOP. In 2011, more Independents leaned toward the GOP. 18% of Americans identified as Independent, lean-GOP against 14% who were Independent, lean-Dem. In 2012, those numbers flipped, with 16% of Independents leaning Dem and 14% leaning GOP.

These numbers can change.  Public opinion is shiftable sand; therefore, there are no permanent victories in politics.  However, another interesting find relates to the Tea Party.  While some thought the movement was dead last summer, those rumors were dispelled with the primary – and general election – wins of  Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).  However, now only 8% of likely voters identify themselves as Tea Partiers.

Paul Bedard wrote in The Washington Examiner on January 7 that:

 Some 30 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party, down from 51 perent in 2009.

56 percent said it has become less influential.

From Rasmussen:

Views of the Tea Party movement are at their lowest point ever, with voters for the first time evenly divided when asked to match the views of the average Tea Party member against those of the average member of Congress. Only eight percent (8%) now say they are members of the Tea Party, down from a high of 24% in April 2010 just after passage of the national health care law.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 30% of Likely U.S. Voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party. Half (49%) of voters have an unfavorable view of the movement. Twenty-one percent (21%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

In April 2009 when the Tea Party protests against President Obama’s spending policies first erupted, 51% of Americans held a favorable opinion of the movement. However, just 35% felt that way by last July.

Only 34% of voters now believe the Tea Party movement is good for the country, down from 49% in April 2011. Slightly more (40%) think the Tea Party is bad for the country, while 17% say neither.

A majority (56%) of voters agrees that the Tea Party movement has become less influential over the past year. Just 21% feel it has become more influential, although even more (23%) are not sure.

So, will the next discussion, on a long list of subjects, amongst conservatives be concerned with the Tea Party, and their influence within the party? Are they responsible for the country’s shift back to left?  Stay tuned.

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

11/11/12  There has been a lot of talk about where we go from here. I’ve been getting a lot of questions and a lot of hate mail. Join me to discuss the good and the bad of Tuesday, and how you’re feeling about the future. Also, Louis Fowler will stop by to talk entertainment. Tonight at 10pmET/7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.

Happy Veteran’s Day! Thank you vets and those still serving. God Bless you and God Bless America.

UPDATE: Listen to a replay of the show here or follow the link to download.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Californians Face Primary Voting Today: Races to Watch

Tuesday, June 5

Californians head to the polls today to vote in primary elections and the ballots will be longer than voters have seen in the past. That is because new ballot rules goes into effect this election cycle. Under the new “top-two” system, party affiliations are removed from candidates and voters will have the opportunity to choose from any candidate from any party. The top two winners will then square off in the November elections. This applies to all races except the Presidential race.

There are only two propositions on the ballot this cycle:

Prop 28 has been billed as “term limits” legislation but technically lengthens the amount of time legislators can serve. Currently legislators are limited to two 3-year terms in the Assembly and two 4-year terms in the Senate. That’s a total of 14 years a politician can serve in the legislature. Prop 28 reduces that limit to 12 years but allows lawmakers to serve that 12 years in either house.

Prop 29 levies a new $1 per pack cigarette tax to raise money for “cancer” research. Opponents say it creates a new bureaucracy and doesn’t allocate taxes to be spent within the borders California. So far polling on the measures shows Californians in favor of passing both.

A couple of other races to watch in California today:

In Orange County the heated, controversial race for County Supervisor between “establishment” Republican Todd Spitzer and “Tea Party” candidate Deb Pauly will come to a head. Both Spitzer and Pauly have thrown out contentious, serious allegations of misconduct against each other. Pauly was ousted as vice-chair of the OC Republican Party just days ago and Spitzer has been running from a record in which he increased pensions.

The Senate race, where Republican Elizabeth Emken will join 23 other candidates to take on the heavily funded Diane Feinstein

The race for District Attorney in Los Angeles, where Republican Alan Jackson will try to force a run-off against Carmen Trutanich. Trutanich (D) has faced accusations of corruption and bullying, but has raised twice the funds of Jackson.

Two local elections are mirroring what is happening in Wisconsin today. In San Diego and San Jose voters will be asked to decide on pension reforms in order to reign in the city budgets. Predictably, unions have been fighting the measures in both cities. The results will have a ripple effect throughout the rest of the state, as California faces an $85 billion unfunded pension liability in the coming years.

California currently does not have any of those pesky, racist voter identification laws so vote early, vote often.

You can follow election results live at the Orange County Register . I’ll also be doing a live, remote show from a special location to be disclosed at showtime, so tune into the Dark Side with Kira Davis at 7:00 p.m. Pacific.

Clinton's State Department to discredit Russian elections?

NEW YORK, January 31, 2012 — Anthony T. Salvia, Director of the American Institute in Ukraine, and consultant in international public advocacy and governmental affairs, has said that Vladimir Putin is still the most popular politician in Russia.

He said: “If the Russian presidential election were held next week, Prime Minster Vladimir Putin would likely win with 52-58% of the popular vote-some 20 points fewer than the result he achieved in 2004, but still representing broad popular support in line with Western standards of electoral success. If his position were to slip between then and March 4th, and he were to receive less than 50% of the vote, he would find himself in a run-off, most likely with Communist party leader Gennady Zyuganov, over whom he would certainly prevail.

“So says Valery Fyodorov, general director of VTsIOM, one of Russia’s leading public opinion research organizations. He recently presented detailed polling results to an international conference organized by the Mitteleuropa Initiative in Vienna.

“He said a greater danger for Putin than Zyuganov would be the inevitable efforts of opposition forces to de-legitimize his election-which they will do even if the process is conducted freely and fairly.

“US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provoked Moscow’s ire when she labeled the Russian State Duma elections of last December 4th “neither free nor fair,” demanding that each and every instance of fraud be investigated.

“Fyodorov contradicted this narrative. He told your correspondent that while vote fraud certainly did take place, it did not do so on such a scale as to alter the results, which corresponded broadly to exit and pre-election polling nationwide. Nevertheless, the opposition-i.e., the disaffected members of the urban middle class, the liberal intelligentsia, Communists and Russian nationalists who took to the streets to protest electoral chicanery- as well as much of the Western media and some leading Western politicians, have sought to de-legitimize the Duma elections, and, thereby, the Russian government.

“More of the same can be expected in the aftermath of the presidential vote on March 4th.

“Some opposition forces will surely seek to portray any decline in Putin’s percentage of the vote since the last time he ran (certain to happen), a lower rate of voter participation (as those who feel there is no acceptable alternative to Putin stay home), and an upsurge in support for the parties of the left, including the Communist Party (likely in view of their strong showing in the State Duma elections of last December, although as of this writing, Putin is rising in the polls) as popular disavowal of Putin. For good measure, they will allege voter fraud-whether or not it took place-in an effort to discredit and de-legitimize Putin and the Russian system generally.

“Secretary Clinton and her merry band of humanitarian interventionists at Foggy Bottom will be only too happy to egg them on. They will be aided and abetted by the Republican foreign policy establishment, which shares Mrs. Clinton’s antipathy to Putin-not because, in their view, he is not a democrat (they could not care less about that), but because he dares to resist Washington’s efforts to turn Russia into a nominally independent satellite by standing up for Russia’s legitimate national interests.”

Santorum Surge: Should We All Start Investing in Sweater Vests Now?

I never in my life would have thought I’d be describing the Iowa caucuses as exciting.  Hell, I can’t even say the word “caucus” without having to suppress immature fits of giggles.  It’s just such a funny word.  I have never really taken the Iowa caucuses as seriously as Iowans themselves do.  After all it’s not a real vote and it polls a small cross section of citizens.  I have always felt content to simply tune into the news the next day and find out the winners and losers.  Tuesday was different.

With wall-to-wall press coverage as if it were a real Presidential contest it was hard not to be sucked into the buzz.  Perhaps it was the idea that the field would be thinning a bit with the Iowa results, or the curiosity as to whether or not Ron Paul crowd could propel him to victory there that created such an atmosphere.  Maybe it was all the weirdness surrounding Newt’s surge and fall; whatever it was, Iowa was where all eyes were focused on Tuesday night.

What was widely expected was that Romney would win the caucuses, and Ron Paul might surprise with a win or close finish.   What was certainly not expected was the Rick Santorum -the generic Republican who has seemingly been blending into the background of every GOP debate thus far – would nearly win the caucuses (heehee) and suddenly become a national sensation.

In a race that counted tens of thousands of votes, the winner came down to a difference of merely 8 votes.  Suddenly Rick Santorum went from being a punchline to a real challenger.  Although Mitt Romney eventually came out on top, there is not doubt the real winner was Rick Santorum, who now has a spot in the national limelight for the time being, at least.

But what does all this mean for the months ahead in this primary battle?  Santorum has been branded the “social conservative candidate” and with Bachmann’s exit and Perry’s struggle in the polls, many are wondering if this Iowa “win” will siphon off some of those Bachmann/Perry voters.  I hate to make predictions.  Goodness knows this primary race has already held many more surprises than any of us anticipated.  However it can’t be ignored that Santorum’s Iowa surprise will have consequences for the rest of the race.  Will Santorum suddenly become a Ronald Reagan-type candidate that Republicans across America will suddenly begin to rally around? I doubt that.  Santorum isn’t so much the issue here, but what he represents is the message that conservatives aren’t ready to hand over the nomination to Mitt Romney just yet.  This presidential season is all about the “Not Obama” campaign, and in our own party we are dealing with a “Not Romney” faction that is truly digging their feet in and refusing to concede to the media’s pick for us.

Santorum bet big on Iowa.  He has visited all 99 counties over the last year, repeatedly.  He bet his campaign on the idea that if people could get to know him personally, they would vote for him.  His bet paid off, but can it translate to votes outside of Iowa?  After all, he hasn’t the time or ability to visit every county in America in the next 10 months.  Santorum has received a huge media bump from this win, and that will most certainly translate into dollars, although to what extent remains to be seen.  Also, millions of Americans who had no idea who Rick Santorum was before Tuesday night are now able to associate the face with the name and will be more likely to follow his progress as the primaries move along.  That is publicity that you just can’t buy.  All that bodes well for Santorum to continue his momentum moving into the other primary states.  What won’t be to his advantage is the shelacking he is about to receive from the mainstream media.  Even those on our side have not always been kind to the former PA senator.  At best he has been described by his detractors as a mediocre senator who eventually lost by 18 points to a very liberal Democrat.  He has also supported earmarks and other questionable spending plans and he will most certainly be held to account for those things.  Also, Santorum will most definitely be painted with the same homophobic, racist, sexist brush the media uses to portray all of us conservatives.  He may be riding high today after his almost-victory, but Santorum shouldn’t get too happy. We’ll be hearing the Hitler metaphors inside of a week, bet on that.  How he handles the criticism will be very telling as to whether or not he can turn the Iowa caucuses (snicker) into a victory on a national level.

For Romney, Santorum’s surge means he still has a lot of work to do to win over the Republican base.  Far from being the “lock” he was once predicted to be, Romney can’t seem to poll over 30% and each challenge to his front-runner status has only served to highlight the fact that he is far from wrapping up this nomination, despite the best efforts of the media.

If anything, this Santorum victory serves to remind Republicans that this race is nowhere near over; and while the primary process may be bloody and tiresome at times it is absolutely vital in selecting a credible candidate.  When the process is tampered and toyed with by 3rd party haters and establishment tricks we end up with a John McCain…but when the process is allowed to unfold spontaneously we end up with what we have now – an unpredictable roller coaster.  I wouldn’t have it any other way.

The 730 Days That Continue to Change the World

After years of fighting, years of spilling our blood and treasure, we finally had our own independent, sovereign country. We were finally free of the shackles of tyranny. So many of our young men lay dead, so much of our property gone, so much of our innocence lost. Yet, we were finally in control of our own destiny. This precious gift of freedom bestowed upon and earned by us, now looked to us for its continued sustenance.

The answers would come with difficulty, just like our independence had done so. The solutions would not be unanimous nor perfect, but they would be ours, for better or worse. Many of the solutions would prove effective and many would not. Time and experience would, as always, would be the true indicators of success.

Finally, on a hot summer day in Philadelphia, a group of the finest leaders in our fledgling country signed a document that would give us the best chance of success for this new Republic. Within two years, it had been ratified and put into practice and since 1789, our country has enjoyed a simple freedom – that no more than 730 days would pass before we the people would have the opportunity to radically change the course of our government.

Fast forward to the year 2012. Only hours ago did we ring in the new year, as has been the custom for centuries. But unlike last year, this year brings that all-important day – day 730 – to bear. Because of the United States Constitution, we’re given the opportunity to change the entire makeup of the body of Congress, which was considered by our forefathers to be the most influential and powerful over the course of our nation. The House of Representatives was always intended to reflect the will of the people in the election process that is held every two years, and is the closest thing to a pure democracy that the framers ever wanted to approach.

Every 730 days (or 731) the charge is given to the people to point the country in the direction it wants. We now have a fixed 435 member lower house, not one of whom is guaranteed to hold that position for more than 730 days. Yes, some members continue to enjoy reelection to the post on a continual basis, but none of them are guaranteed a spot. Without filing the proper paperwork and formally declaring candidacy, no one in the House of Representatives may serve beyond his or her current term.

This means that if we, as a people, want to replace all 435 members with someone else and thus dramatically change the direction of the country, we can do that every 730 days. The next opportunity for this will be in a little over 11 months from now. If new people are elected, it will be because of the will of the people. If old people stay in their positions, it will be because of the will of the people.

It is far too easy in our cynical world just to say that we do not have control over our own political destiny. It’s too easy to blame big corporations, big government, unions, special interest groups etc. for having a stronghold on Washington, but at the end of the day, it’s the voter that sets the agenda and it’s the voter that must take ultimate responsibility.

Taking personal responsibility however is not in vogue in our current society. It is far easier to hold up signs that blame Wall Street, corrupt politicians and the like. Unfortunately, if we are going to be truly honest with ourselves, we will have to realize that our chance to right the ship arrived and we didn’t do our part. He it’s easy to chant slogans and shout “we the people!” It’s much more difficult to realize that the true “Buck” stops not at the desk of the president, but at our own front door. WE are the controllers of the destiny of this country, not our politicians, not special interests, not unions and not big corporations. “We the people” refers not just to our rights as United States citizens, but to our responsibilities as well – responsibilities given to us by countless individuals who gave up their lives, their liberties and their pursuits of happiness – for ours.

So before you go out and protest, before you call up a radio talk show, before you spout off to anyone willing to listen about how bad your country is, I challenge you to do the one thing that will make the most difference – VOTE! Your vote is no more or less valuable than that of the bigwigs on Wall Street or the CEO of a powerful company or the head of an influential union. Your vote is the greatest equalizer ever given to man in terms of his political future. It’s time to take your job seriously – a job you only need to exercise every 730 days. Consider the fact that for the vast majority of people on this earth, this job is not even offered to them.

If we as citizens/members/employers of our country neglect to use this great power and privilege, that is our choice. But by forfeiting this God-given right and privilege, we give up the right to be “boss” to those persons who, for the next 730 days, will control the direction of the country.

Playing Santa on Our Dime

One does not have to go to Washington to become an out–of–touch politician and it’s not required to be a Democrat. Local Republicans can lose their way quite nicely without all the bother of traveling to D.C.

This summer, in Prince William County, VA, Jeanine Lawson ran a spirited challenge in the Republican primary against two–term incumbent Wally Covington for the Brentsville Supervisor’s seat.

Lawson was outspent by two–to–one — typical when you’re running against an incumbent — but what she lacked in revenue, she made up for in motivation.

But on election night all Lawson’s hope and effort came crashing down when she lost by a razor–thin 159 votes.
Incumbent politicians react to a closer–than–expected victory like this in one of two ways:

The near–death experience causes them to reevaluate their career and make substantial changes in their political behavior to more closely mirror what the voters expect.

-Or-

They consider themselves bulletproof and liberated from the petty concerns of annoying constituents.
It looks like Supervisor Covington has become liberated.

Since the election, Covington has single–handedly created two issues involving conflicts of interest and misuse of taxpayer dollars that would have given Lawson victory in the primary, if only the issues had surfaced about five months earlier.
Here’s the background: each supervisor has an office budget of between $322,000 and $350,000. The bulk goes to staff and office overhead. Unspent money is carried over and added to the supervisor’s budget next year.

Even local Republicans keep the unspent money because it’s taxpayer dollars, which everyone knows are free. I’m sure Tea party–types demand to know why next year’s budget is not reduced by the carryover amount, but who cares what they think? When’s the last time a Tea partier went through the free food line at Zuccotti Park?

Supervisors who want to donate our money to their worthy cause go through a two–step process, rather than just throwing dollar bills off a Christmas parade float. At the weekly board meeting they announce their intent to donate and the next week the board approves the donation.

This gives the appearance of checks and balances without the reality of any restraint. It’s the political equivalent of the point in a marriage ceremony where the pastor proclaims, “If any of you has reason why these two should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace.”

So what’s the problem with politicians giving our money to a worthy cause and then feeling good about themselves?
Simple, they often use your money to build up political chits to cash in during the next campaign. Incumbents may list their abundant compassion on their campaign website to show how much they care about the community. Often they get a spot at the head table during an organization’s main fund–raising banquet and are introduced to the attendees. Members of the organization’s board may endorse the politician during the campaign.

It’s how one hand washes the other, with the taxpayers buying the soap.

The organization likes it because it’s more efficient to get large checks from a politician who needs political support, rather than making your charity’s case to some tightfisted taxpayer who probably wants to spend the money on pay–per–view MMA bouts.
Which brings us why Wally Covington’s proposed donation doesn’t pass the smell test.

Covington had already given $10,000 – the largest contribution of 2011 by any member of the board of supervisors – to something called the Healthy Youth Council. In turn, these aerobic youngsters spent PWC taxpayer’s money on a conference in Blacksburg, VA, which is 237 miles outside Covington’s district, because evidently every restaurant, meeting hall, bingo parlor and convention center in Prince William was booked up that October weekend.

Covington, however, is not a man to let something as tacky as geography stand in the way of his beneficence.
Just a bit over a month later, he announces he intends to donate $100,000 in district funds to the Rainbow Therapeutic Equestrian Center for its capital campaign.

Where does one begin? First the amount is ten times the record Covington set when he gave local tax dollars to Blacksburg’s meeting and convention industry. Second, the equestrian center is once again not located in his Brentsville district. And finally, Covington’s wife, Connie, is president of the center’s board of directors.

Of course Covington assures us there is absolutely no conflict of interest in this donation because his wife is not a paid member of the equestrian center’s staff.

The only way Covington could have improved on the spectacle of this donation would have been to invite noted Virginia horse fanciers and White House dinner crashers Michaele and Tareq Salahi to the check presentation ceremony.
This is contempt for the voters that is Pelosian in intensity.

Finally, it’s always amusing to hear “progressives” and other statists claim that the solution to our political woes is public campaign finance. When it’s obvious this discretionary funds saga proves we already have a partial system of taxpayer campaign finance, but the only candidates allowed to take advantage are incumbents.

Election Results from Tuesday November 8th

Check back regularly as the CDNews staff will be updating this page as results come in from Washington, Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio. (or just hit the reload/refresh button occasionally)

Kentucky

Steve Beshear (D) wins re-election bid as Governor – has more than 58% of the vote

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has been re-elected, becoming the second Democrat to win a U.S. gubernatorial race this year amid lingering economic uncertainty that’s already proving worrisome to President Barack Obama’s 2012 effort.

Beshear easily overcame challenges from Republican David Williams and independent Gatewood Galbraith, in a conservative state where voters routinely elect Republicans in national races. With 50 percent of precincts reporting, Beshear had 241,211 votes or 58 percent, to 131,319 votes for Williams or 31 percent. Galbraith had 44,893 votes or 11 percent. [from HuffingtonPost]

Ohio

Issue 2: FAILED: SB5 – the limitation of collective bargaining for public-sector unions – Initiative fails, SB5 defeated, unions can hold Ohio citizens hostage again thanks to Millions of Dollars of Big-labor special interest money.

Issue 3: PASSED: Vote to exempt Ohio from Obamacare insurance mandate – measure passes – Ohio citizens have voted to be exempt from Obama’s health care reform individual mandate. Supreme Court case incoming “10th amendment v. Obama”

Maine

Maine voters decided that it should be ok to vote the same day you register overturning the law that would have required voters to register a whole 2 days before the election.

Mississippi

Initiative 26: FAILED: Definition of a Person (personhood) – does life start at conception? Mississippi says no: 42% yes, 58% no with 921 of 1876 precincts reporting

Gubernatorial race: BRYANT WINS: Phil Bryant (R) vs. Johnny DuPree (D): 802 of 1876 precincts reporting 59% to 41% for Bryant

Washington

The Washington Liquor State Licensing Initiative (1183) was PASSED by a 60-40 margin.  The referendum called for the closing of state liquor stores as a part of budget cutting and the privatization of liquor sales.

Virginia

Preliminary indications are that the Virginia Senate will be split 20-20 giving the tie break to the GOP Lt. Governor and control of committees to the Republicans.  However Senate seat 17 has been decided by less than 100 votes.  A recount is expected.

Maine's Battle Over Voter Registration

As the presidential election draws closer and many states hold their midterm elections this month, voter identification and registration has once again become a hotly contested issue. Not even the state of Maine has escaped this controversy, as same day voter registration is the controversial first question on the ballot.

Because many Mainers are unfamiliar with the background of the question, there is confusion over what a yes or no vote means.

The question reads:

Do you want to reject the section of Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011 that requires new voters to register to vote at least two business days prior to an election?

A ‘yes’ vote means repealing a law requiring voters to register before they go to the polls. It means people could register and vote all in one trip to the polls.

A ‘no’ vote means that the voter wishes to uphold the bill and wants to require Maine voters to register to vote before they go to the polls on election day.

Clearly, the wording of the question is confusing, especially if you don’t know what Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011 is. In June of this year, Governor Paul LePage signed An Act to Preserve the Integrity of the Voter Registration and Election Process. This updated Maine’s registration law so that mail registration must be mailed 21 business days before the election and in person registration must be done at least 3 business days before the election. Mainers who were angry with this change of policy enacted a petition that gained enough signatures to force Question 1 onto the state ballot.

Now that it is there, the pressure to influence voters is high. Groups who want same day voter registration to continue are campaigning on the usual line- If same day voter registration is vetoed, people won’t vote, especially the lower classes. They have also been pressuring students to vote yes on Question 1, claiming that it helps ensure their voice be heard.

Opponents to same day voter registration are crying foul- their argument is the same for those who advocate the mandatory use of voter ID- reducing the risk of fraud. Obviously, same day voter registration eliminates verification of identity before voting, making it much easier for illegal immigrants to vote and much easier for people to assume identities that are not theirs.

This question is certainly the most contested question in the state and reflects a growing national conflict over voter security. In a day and age where identity theft is easy and at many polling places, identity verification is lax, many are calling for the use of voter ID. This has the possibility of taking on many forms-a drivers license, student ID, insurance card, etc. But opponents to such measures claim that this would lead to racial discrimination and would stop minorities and the low class from voting. Many scoff at this idea since required voter ID would mean all voters, regardless of race, would have to prove their identity.

The results of this ballot question will be interesting, as it may set a precedent for the issue of voter identification and registration on a national issue. Do voters believe the charges that same day voter registration leads to fraud? Or do they believe instead that same day voter registration is a great benefit to those without means to get around or have busy schedules and fraud is not important? Whatever the outcome, this is an important vote to watch as the national election, and questions of required voter ID come to a climax.