- Who We Are
- Speak Up!
- Take Action
Each election there are some who want to change how we elect the President. Specifically, there are calls to do away with the Electoral College.
I believe the Electoral College is a valid and vital concept. What I disagree with is that the electoral votes are awarded on a "winner take all" basis per State.
This last election has shown the continuing trend in American politics to do away with the "melting pot" of America.
We saw ad after ad target specific groups of people in an attempt to convince them to vote as a whole and not give individual thought to a given issue. Two of the more blatant examples covered immigration and support for Israel.
I am reminded of two terms from chemistry that are often confused: "compound" and "mixture."
In a recent letter to the editor of the Las Vegas Sun titled “Stay-at-home moms face less pressure,” the author opened with this remark: “... but until a woman works to earn the money to feed and protect her family, she cannot understand fully the critical need this ailing economy has imposed on so many working women and men.”
I cannot disagree more strongly with that statement.
The State of the Union address had the theme "build America to last" with heavy emphasis on jobs. I want to know why now? This is where Mr. Obama should have placed his emphasis when he first took office instead of health care reform.
In March of 2009, he said that not only are most of the jobs that were moved offshore not going to come back, but that we did not need or want them to do so because they would be bad for the economy. After three years of continuing high unemployment it would seem Mr. Obama was mistaken about the last part.
Very few people will deny that special interests such as corporations and associations, whether they be for profit or non-profit, exert enormous influence over our elections through PACs and other activities. It has proven almost impossible to control this because most attempts to do so run afoul of the First Amendment and the legal fiction that such organizations are "persons."
It will take an amendment to the Constitution to remove the conflict.
The ability to take a citizen's life as punishment for committing a crime is one of the defining attributes of a sovereign nation. It is something that should never be imposed lightly.
Tonight we saw two state executions take place, one in Georgia, the other in Texas. The execution in Texas was that of Lawrence Brewer. The crime for which he was executed was so brutal it was part of the inspiration for hate-crime legislation.
There have been events in our history from the very beginning that have helped form our national character. But few, if any, have had such a transformational effect as 9/11 has. That horrible day will forevermore be held up alongside Pearl Harbor as the definition of infamy. But while Pearl Harbor and prior events have served to strengthen our national identity and dedication to liberty, 9/11 has taken away from that.
For all the outrage and military action following 9/11, the primary response was to give in to fear.
Brian Greenspun, publisher and editor of the Las Vegas Sun, had this to say in his editorial from today:
Pat [Mulroy]’s idea is simple. It is a pipeline that would take the rising water away from the Mississippi River and transport it westward to the Colorado River where, frankly, water is in very short supply. Over the next decade or so, many millions of Baby Boomers will be retiring to the Southwest, putting a further demand on the diminishing water supply. It makes perfect sense that we should take the water no one wants and move it to a place where everyone needs it. The only thing in the way is an old argument about water laws that should no longer, well, hold water. Whatever that pipeline costs can probably be offset by the next few years of flood damage. That’s a pretty good return on investment.
First, I want to send a big "Thank You!" to a family member whose feedback is largely responsible for us having "What We Believe" and "Where We Stand" at the top of the front page. The traffic stats are already proving he was correct in his feeling that those are the most important pages on a political website.
After six long months of starts and stops the new Modern Whig website is up and running.
This is by far the most complex site I have developed using these tools. Yet the actual technical side wasn't that hard at all thanks to the excellent design of the software we are using.
I just finished viewing the Libertarian Party's official website (again.) One thing that struck me was that no where do they allow people to register to post comments! They could certainly do this, as it looks like they are using the same software we are on this site.
I think it is a contradiction in terms for them to promote individual liberty yet not allow discussion (and possible dissent) by at the very least their own party members on their website.
We Whigs know that open discussion among us is the only way to reach genuine compromise and rational solutions.