Commentary – State Senate Votes On Bill To By-Pass Electoral College
It was recently reported that the state Senate approved an Assembly bill that seeks to bypass the Electoral College system and institute a national popular vote to elect the President of the United States., claiming that this would eliminate such instances as happened with the 2000 election. Read it for yourself, as reported in “The San Francisco Chronicle.” I was under the impression that the Electoral College was in place for a reason: primarily to assure that all states would have equal representation in the voting process. For example, voters in states like Alaska, Nebraska, Montana and Ohio, to name a few; which have far fewer residents than California, Massachusetts or New York, would be outnumbered by those three more populous states alone, and the votes of those in less populous states would not count as much without the Electoral College. In the Electoral College system, votes are apportioned according to the population of each state, and by the representation of those state citizens in Congress. Obviously, this measure was created by a disgruntled member of the Democratic Party; possibly from the “Leftist” factions who follow in the footsteps of all those Socialist-Marxist nations who have been demanding a recall of late when their party is not elected. The Electoral College assures a more proportionate representation of votes from each state and prevents a few states that are more populous from having total control over all the rest of the states whose populations are fewer and whose political beliefs may not coincide with their own. What do you think?
Have you read “Beyond Gay Marriage”? If not, read this review by the “Family Values” crowd and decide for yourself.
“The vision described in “Beyond Gay Marriage” is not supported by the majority of Americans. Yet our cultural elites–wielding considerable political influence–disagree. Thus, it is imperative that every candidate for elected office declare if he supports the vision of family life set forth in “Beyond Gay Marriage” –polygamous and polyamorous “marriages” and the creation of children raised by multiple queer households–or the model defended in the Princeton Principles–one man and one woman coming together exclusively and permanently as husband and wife to become father and mother to any children their marital love may bring. This is the question at the heart of the modern marriage debate. And voters need to know where their elected officials stand.”
—sent in by Bruce Albert
WHAT DO YOU THINK? According to television reports, today was apparently the day that another 9/11 was to have happened, an event that terrorists themselves have boasted about over various television broadcasts, claiming it would have been much worse than 9/11. Fortunately it did not happen, thanks to the efficient and unfettered methods of British Intelligence and Surveillance; and for that, we are extremely grateful. But it brings up a very important question about our own country. KTLA’s Hal Fishman expressed it best in his commentary on his network’s newscast and I tend to agree with him, as do several others in our community whom I have spoken to! To paraphrase: “What would have happened if it had been left up to our own Intelligence and Surveillance systems to uncover this plot?” Would they have been able to do so, or are the hands of those agencies tied because of concerns by left-wing operatives that our government may be “spying” on private citizens, or because they would be considered “racist” for targeting people of an ethnic culture in which terrorist extremism is happening? It’s sad to think about, but I tend to agree that had it been up to us in the United States to uncover that plot, thousands of people would probably have died this week. It’s not the fault of our Intelligence or Surveillance systems; rather, it’s the fault of those “concerned” individuals who think that our government is trying to infringe on human rights while trying to protect us in a time of open warfare perpetrated by those who are against freedom and liberty. Many people are feeling the same way. Check out this article by Jacob Laksin entitled “The Legal Left’s War on National Security,” as published on the website of “Front Page Magazine.”
Then, tell us: What do you think?
The Advocate August 11, 2006
A California bill preventing antigay discrimination in state-operated or -funded programs has passed the legislature and now moves to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk for him to sign or veto. The bill, authored by out State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), would protect state residents utilizing such public services as police and fire protection, financial aid, and food stamps from being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
“I am very pleased that my colleagues passed this measure and supported the principle that everyone should have equal access to the programs and services provided by our government,” said Senator Kuehl in a statement. “With Governor Schwarzenegger’s signature, this bill will close an important gap in California’s nondiscrimination laws.”
Added Geoff Kors, executive director of statewide gay-rights group Equality California, “Once again, California is leading the way in providing the most comprehensive nondiscrimination protections in the country.”
(The Advocate) http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid35368.asp
Two patients limp into 2 different American Medical clinics with the same complaint.
Both have trouble walking and appear to require a hip replacement.The 1st patient is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day & has a time booked for surgery the following week.
The 2nd sees the family doctor after waiting a week for an appointment,
then waits 18 weeks to see a specialist,
then gets an x-ray, which isn’t reviewed for another month &
finally has his surgery scheduled for 6 months from then.
Why the different treatment for the two patients?
The 1st is a Golden Retriever…..The 2nd is a Senior Citizen.
“Think back, Arthur… Think back!” No, this was not dialogue by the late Sir John Gielgud giving advice to the late Dudley Moore in the motion picture “Arthur.” Dudley Moore’s Arthur was a rather self-centered man who had nothing better to do with his life than to indulge himself and not care about anyone else… at least until Liza Minelli came along! It was a line of dialogue from another film about another Arthur altogether… the legendary King Arthur in “Camelot.” King Arthur, at least by the account of T.H. White upon which the motion picture and stage musical was based, considered himself a civilized king who would think more of the concerns of his people and thereby attempt to govern them wisely by remembering certain events of history. It was the wizard Merlin who advised Arthur to think back, whenever the perplexed king was faced with a situation in the present that would greatly affect the future. “Think back, Arthur… Think back.” Very wise words indeed… and indeed they are wise words for all of us in California to consider; especially as election time draws near once again. We Californians certainly do have a lot to think back upon… before we cast our ballots in November. (more…)