The last moderate leaves the Obama administration.

Barack Obama has burned through his second chief of staff, Bill Daley. It was thought that Daley would remain on board until after the next election but that is not to be and Daley’s departure is the opening salvo in what promises to be a war.

Charlie Gasparino tells us why Daley left and what it means: a hard left turn.

The announcement that Bill Daley will step down as President Obama’s chief of staff is further proof that as the 2012 election approaches, Obama is embracing his inner leftist on anything touching the economy. The administration has moved so far left that even one of the country’s most prominent Democrats can’t fit in.

And he believes that the Republican nominee will face a “scorched Earth” campaign assault.

Daley was about the last moderate in the Obama administration. He no doubt riled his colleagues and boss with the occasional flash of truth:

Daley said he couldn’t get into detail about the individual case which he said sounded like the “typical sort of bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend. Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.” The chief of staff said he would look into the case to “see if there is any way to bring some reason into it.”

Daley eventually became a pariah because of his tendency to be a moderate:

Daley thought he had the president’s blessing to move the Obama economic agenda to the center, but that support quickly evaporated as the ideologues and the spin masters like Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe assumed bigger roles in the administration’s daily affairs.

As I reported on the Fox Business Network back in September, Daley grew increasingly agitated about his role. He openly complained that he was being isolated by Jarrett, Obama’s friend and personal adviser, who’s been at the forefront of Obama’s most recent leftward tilt, and let it be known that he wanted to do something else — maybe serve as treasury secretary, given his banking background at JP Morgan.

Daley was reportedly undercut routinely by the Chicago mafia:

Daley was often overruled by Obama Chicago insiders like Valerie Jarrett, leaving him ineffectual. If nothing else it’s surprising Bill Daley put up with the level of disrespect he faced from the “chosen few,” in the administration.

But it seems his greatest fault was trying to work with Republicans

Daley’s downward spiral was accelerated when he tried to work with Congressional Republicans, something he learned from serving in the Clinton administration. Daley suggested Obama work with Speaker Boehner to “go big” on a deal during the summer debt ceiling negotiations while Obama’s close friends wanted Obama to take a tougher “take it or leave it,” approach.

Obama Senior Adviser David Plouffe and incoming Chief of Staff Lew were in favor of a big deal with Boehner while National Economic Council Chairman Gene Sperling was opposed. Sperling won and Daley lost.

Daley’s moderate views and his willingness to work with Republicans made him widely unpopular with White House staff leading to deterioration in his role in administration efforts. Daley’s businessman’s approach to the nation’s fiscal issues ran in direct opposition to key White House advisors that wanted more liberal policies.

Tavis Smiley says the coming election will be the “ugliest.”

You can bet on it.

People forget that this is the same Barack Obama whose people somehow managed to come into possession of Jack Ryan’s sealed divorce records and then had his operatives email supporters about it. The Chicago Tribune then piled on, suing to have Ryan’s sealed records made public. Then, inexplicably, Berkeley-educated and Grey Davis-appointed judge Robert Schnider decided that Ryan’s divorce records should be made public and Ryan’s campaign was doomed.

Obama made a pious reversal on his position about injecting Ryan’s records into the race- but only after they were ordered released. Yet he did not call on others to do the same.

Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Barack Obama reversed his position on Republican rival Jack Ryan’s divorce file Friday, calling on fellow Democrats to refrain from trying to inject it into the campaign.

“I don’t think it’s an appropriate topic for debate,” Obama said.

Obama has consistently said that his campaign would not focus on Ryan’s 1999 divorce from TV actress Jeri Ryan.

But when he first made that pledge, Obama refused to call on other Democrats to follow his lead.

“It’s going to be up to other people to determine what’s appropriate and what’s not,” Obama said the day after his March primary victory.

Given’s Obama’s past and with Axelrod, Plouffe and Jarrett behind the scenes, you absolutely can expect to see the nastiest, filthiest election campaign you have ever seen.

It’s the Chicago way.

“I will see nutting!”

Or, why Eric Holder will remain in office until 2013 at least.

A pair of articles from the Washington Times make clear that the White House has a plan for the 2012 election, and that is to guarantee victory for Obama regardless of the outcome of the vote. A large part of it depends on Eric Holder and his continual bastardization of the law.

The first comes from Robert Knight and his account of why democrats despise voter id laws:

Assistant AG Thomas Perez, the same official who terminated the Black Panther voter intimidation case, ordered South Carolina to stop enforcing its voter photo ID law. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson explained precisely why the law is necessary:

The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.

Contrary to left wing claims, requiring photo ID has not been shown to suppress voter ID:

A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.

The second article comes from Jeffrey Kuhner. Against the backdrop of the Carter/Baker report (of which Holder appears to be completely ignorant) Eric Holder plays the race card for South Carolina:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. claims Jim Crow is returning. In a recent speech, Mr. Holder said that attempts by states to pass voter identification laws will disenfranchise minorities, rolling back the clock to the evil days of segregation. He said that a growing number of minorities fear that “the same disparities, divisions and problems” now afflict America as they did in 1965 prior to the Voting Rights Act. According to the Obama administration, our democracy is being threatened by racist Republicans. Hence, the Justice Department must prevent laws requiring a photo ID to vote from being enacted.

Holder’s argument has no foothold in reality.

Kuhner points out that Holder’s real problem is that photo ID laws will impair ACORN’s ability to conduct fraud:

Mr. Holder evidently wants to scuttle ID laws because he knows which organization will be hurt most: ACORN. For years, community activist groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, have engaged in massive electoral fraud – registering illegal aliens, offering bribes to numerous politically disinterested people in the inner cities as inducements to vote and pushing underage and multiple voting. Election reform, therefore, is a stake aimed at the heart of Democratic corruption and ACORN’s power. Clean up the voter rolls and Mr. Obama’s re-election is in serious jeopardy.

Free photo ID cards are made available to anyone who needs one in South Carolina as are absentee votes for those who would trouble getting to the polls. Additionally, in blocking the South Carolina law Holder runs afoul of stare decisis:

Moreover, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue – upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional. If it is good enough for the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the states, then it should be for Mr. Holder as well.

Holder claims that requiring a photo ID is tatamount to a poll tax but that is laughable:

“He has a particularly hard time explaining how the South Carolina requirement of government-issued photo identification amounts to a ‘poll tax’ when the state has also made provisions to provide that identification, free of charge. Hear that, Mr. Attorney General? The only thing the voter has to do is show up and get his or her photo taken. And if that’s too much darn trouble well, then, that person can do something else on election day.”

Why is too burdensome to show up and obtain a photo ID but not too burdensome to show up to vote?

The ducks are aligning in a row. Blocking the South Carolina law will allow ACORN and other left wing operations to run amuck with voter fraud. The problem is that election fraud is a Federal offense, and that’s where Holder becomes critical. I fully expect no end to election chicanery on the part of the ACORN and the left, whether it involves “finding” lost votes as in Minnesota, printing out enough democrat ballots to guarantee a victory, forging signatures, or forging more signatures. I also expect that Holder would dismiss out of hand all claims beneficial to Obama and democrats and pursue only those in which the outcomes favored Republicans.

Ultimately the job of the Attorney General of the United States is protect the law from abuse but it is painfully clear that Eric Holder was appointed to protect abuse from the law.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

”There is no question about legitimacy or importance of a state ‘s interest in counting only eligible voters.”

The integrity of the vote means nothing to Holder. Eric Holder would not know integrity if it bit him in the ass.

And that’s exactly why he was appointed.

Our Attorney General, the same one who wouldn’t prosecute OBVIOUS voter intimidation, now leads the “it’s racism!” charge this election season with a speech signaling his department will be wasting resources by looking into State Voter ID laws.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Tuesday entered the turbulent political waters of voting rights, signaling that the Justice Department would be aggressive in reviewing new voting laws that civil rights advocates say will dampen minority participation in next year’s elections.

Declaring in a speech that protecting ballot access for all eligible voters “must be viewed not only as a legal issue but as a moral imperative,” Mr. Holder urged Americans to “call on our political parties to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success and, instead, achieve success by appealing to more voters.”

I find it quite humorous when people give the argument that forcing someone to have ID to vote will somehow suppress minorities. Is it not racist to believe that they aren’t capable of get an ID? Even the very poor must have ID when spending their welfare money. So who is being racist here?

In South Africa, for example, where black people were denied the vote until 1994, the new democratic government requires every registered voter–black or white, rich or poor–to bring official photo ID to the polls.

India’s election commission issues a special photo identification card to voters when they register, which they must present at the polls:

The Election Commission of India has made voter identification mandatory at the time of poll. The electors have to identify themselves with either Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) issued by the Commission or any other documentary proof as prescribed by the Commission.

In Europe, the official EU Handbook for Election Observation acknowledges that voters are required to show identification in many countries, and suggests that observers verify that all voters are subject to the same ID check (166). Even the Carter Center for Human Rights, which monitors democratic elections all over the world, identifies “a requirement for identification” as a “reasonable limitation” on universal suffrage.

John Hinderaker knows where this is going:

The Democrats will use their constituent organizations to whip up a frenzy of opposition to “voter suppression,” while DOJ launches, or threatens to launch, legal challenges to selected state statutes. This will energize the Democrats’ base by pretending that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise voters. It also may succeed in increasing the illegal votes that Democrats rely on at the margins of close elections.

We all know where this is going.

Republicans are racist….don’t vote Republican.

It’s partisan politics.

Meanwhile our Criminal AG is trying his best to skate away from the Fast & Furious charges, but there are still a few who want him to pay for his crimes:

Arizona Republican Rep. Paul Gosar has filed a resolution in the House of Representatives pushing for vote of “no confidence” in Attorney General Eric Holder.

The resolution, introduced Monday afternoon, is a formal way to exhibit congressional disdain for Holder as the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious proceeds. It would also be an initial step toward some House Republicans’ plan to formally remove him from office if he won’t resign.

Hot Air:

TheDC’s Matthew Boyle notes that the support for Holder’s resignation today far outweighs the support for the resignation of George W. Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez in 2007. Gonzalez eventually resigned. Yet, today, the president and Holder continue to dismiss the movement for the AG’s resignation as manufactured and unimportant.

That might be why some Republicans in Congress have expressed that they would be prepared to begin the impeachment process.

But either way, the “it’s racism!” charge will continue. This, and the class warfare meme are the tactics they have obviously chosen to steal away any election they come across.

In the Washington Times F. Vincent Vernuccio describes the disclosure of an “intimidation manual” created by the SEIU.

In the past decade, unions have become increasingly desperate to obtain new dues-paying members. An example of how desperate can be found in a 70-plus-page intimidation manual from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which only recently came to light in a pending court case.

The new union tactic is to use pressure on corporate boardrooms as a means of organizing entire companies nationwide rather than recruiting workers on a site-by-site basis; in short, to organize employers rather than employees. To create this pressure, unions attempt to push businesses to the edge of bankruptcy, with little regard for the welfare of employer and employee. They attempt to strong-arm businesses into agreeing to take away the secret ballot for employees in union-organizing elections via card check. They also try to force employers to restrict their own speech on union issues so that workers will not get both sides of the story on unionization. Among the SEIU’s demands is that employers agree to bargain only with it, to the exclusion of all other unions, regardless of what workers want.

It offers clear instructions on how to harass potential targets:

It details the use of community groups to “damage an employer’s public image and ties with community leaders and organizations.” SEIU recommends going after company officials personally. Not mincing words, SEIU states, “It may be a violation of blackmail and extortion laws to threaten management officials with release of ‘dirt’ about them if they don’t settle a contract. But there is no law against union members who are angry at their employer deciding to uncover and publicize factual information about individual managers.”

The “dirt” includes charges such as “racism, sexism, exploitation of immigrants or proposals that would take money out of the community for the benefits of distant stockholders.” SEIU recommends “[l]eafleting outside meetings where [targeted managers] are speaking, their homes, or events sponsored by community organizations they are tied to are some ways to make sure their friends, neighbors, and associates are aware of the controversy.”

The SEIU has not hesitated to use these tactics. In one case they stormed all over the personal residence of Greg Baer, trapping his 14 year old son inside his own home. Another incident with the SEIU left black conservative Kenneth Gladney beaten.

These and numerous other incidents have earned the SEIU the monicker “The Purple People Beaters.”

The USS Stark (FFG 31) burns and lists to port on 18 May 1987, one day after the guided missile frigate was struck by two Iraqi-launched Exocet missiles. The attack killed 37 sailors.

The New Sovereign Investment Fund of Libya or of Colonel Qaddafi, there is no distinction in the money funds of Libya or Qaddafi, invested $1.3 Billion with Goldman Sachs; the bank used the funds on stock options at a variety of international banks and a collection of currency bets. Two years later, the Libyan fund had lost 98% of its value and was worth only $25.1 million.

Officials of Libya’s sovereign wealth fund were upset with Goldman Sachs and accused them of malfeasance; mainly, for making trades without authorization and misrepresenting investment deals.

In July 2008, [Mustafa] Zarti, the fund’s deputy chairman, summoned [Youssef] Kabbaj, Goldman’s North Africa chief, to a meeting with the fund’s legal and compliance staff, according to Libyan Investment Authority emails reviewed by the Journal. One person who attended the meeting says Mr. Zarti was “like a raging bull,” cursing and threatening Mr. Kabbaj and another Goldman employee. Goldman arranged for security to protect the employees until they left Libya the next day, according to people familiar with the matter.

Tip-top Goldman bosses, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein and finance chief David Viniar, scrambled to try to figure out how to fix the relationship with Libya and maintain access to its vast fortune. They also feared that word of the massive loss would spook other sovereign funds, so they offered the nation several ways to recoup the money. The last of the offers was made in a June 2010 meeting. Eight months later, the United States froze some $37 billion in Libyan assets as dictator Muammar Qaddafi turned on his rebelling people. Included in that large amount was what was left of Libya’s investment with Goldman.

In July 2008, [Mustafa] Zarti, the fund’s deputy chairman, summoned [Youssef] Kabbaj, Goldman’s North Africa chief, to a meeting with the fund’s legal and compliance staff, according to Libyan Investment Authority emails reviewed by the Journal. One person who attended the meeting says Mr. Zarti was “like a raging bull,” cursing and threatening Mr. Kabbaj and another Goldman employee. Goldman arranged for security to protect the employees until they left Libya the next day, according to people familiar with the matter.

Being enraged with a favored company of Obama might be dangerous to your position and your health; after all, Obama has the U.S. military and if he keeps his intervention small enough, he doesn’t need congressional approval.

relations between Goldman and Gaddafi became increasingly strained, the Wall Street firm made a total of three separate compensation offers to invest in the group on attractive terms between May and June of 2009, including the deal involving preferred shares. Another proposal would have given the LIA unsecured debt in Goldman, promising a stream of payments that would eventually have repaid the losses.

Over the next two years, discussions on these and a series of other compensation proposals were discussed by LIA and top-level Goldman staff – chairman Lloyd Blankfein, finance head David Viniar and European chief Michael Sherwood. However, they were unable to agree a solution and talks are thought to have eventually petered out last summer.

Now a company that can lose 98% of a 1.3 Billion Dollar investment might be first in line to receive Tarp Funds, thanks to Henry Paulson, Ex-Treasury Secretary. Tim Geitner who is connected to the Federal Reserve, who names Mark Patterson, former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs and the man replacing Geitner at the FED is William Dudley, former chief economist at Goldman Sachs.

Just How Close Are GS And Obama

Goldman offered Libya’s securities-wealth fund an opportunity to invest $3.7 billion in the securities firm, the paper continued, one of six options placed on the table over months of negotiations.

The proposals came at the same time Goldman had taken $5 billion in investments from Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in order to pass the Federal Reserve’s “stress test” to determine whether it had to raise additional capital.

The United States is now one of the NATO allies targeting Libya with rockets in an attempt to get Qaddafi, the decades-long despot, out of power and to see a Transitional National Council take his place.

With all the money wizards of GS and the Obama Administration swapping bunks, is it possible that the financial rip off of Qaddafi was about to become an embarrassment?

What better way to get rid of an embarrassment than to take him out with missiles when he threatens his people, while ignoring other despots that are actually killing their people by the thousands, we are talking about an embarrassment of Goldman Sachs for Muhammad’s Sake! Let’s remember GS used their bailout to start making a profit, they have managed to do so well with their wizardry that they can award 28,000 employees a $600,000 bonus. We can’t lament a few rockets that can help keep the reputation of a company like GS pristine and untainted by corruption. It is imperative that we keep things in perspective.

But damn Obama’s luck, the rockets didn’t kill the Desert Fox and the maniacal fanatics of the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t pull him to pieces, now what is happening to the reputation of Goldman Sachs. Qaddafi wants his money back and the wizards of Obama and Goldman Sachs ain’t looking too clever.

Obama’s promise to rid his administration of lobbyists is a standing joke when it comes to Goldman Sachs. Geitner has reportedly chosen a former GS lobbyist Mark Patterson to be his chief of staff. Patterson worked as a registered lobbyist for GS from 2005 to April of 2010.

It’s natural for Geitner, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs to select a Goldman Sachs insider for the number 2 position. At the Treasury, Jerry Rubin of the Clinton administration, was another Goldman Sachs CEO.

The man chosen to replace Geitner at the New York Fed was W. Dudley former Chief Economist for Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs may as well be considered a part of the federal government. They paid Bill Clinton just under $950,000 for speeches between 2004 and 2007. Their Political Action Committee was the fourth largest donor to Clinton’s campaign, just below Citigroup. The Center for Responsive Politics maintains that Goldman’s Political Action Committee invested over a half million to congressional candidates in the 2008 elections, mostly Democrat incumbents. Goldman Sachs employees contributed more than $5,000,000. Obama received over $1,000,000 from GS for the 2008 election.

How quaint of Obama to promise to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration. Goldman has had a seat at the table since regulations on finance were began to be unlaced during the Clinton years, they were among the first and largest recipients of TARP funding, receiving $10 billion immediately.

In matters of the economy, we can have faith in the intellect of men like Geitner, who according to Bernanke has two main guiding principles: “Life’s about alternatives” and “A plan beats no plan”. Bernanke also has referred to Geitner’s technique to thwart critics, “spray foam on the runway”; meaning, you take steps to limit collateral damage from crashes.

Would Obama be willing to use our military to cover for Goldman Sachs’ incompetence and corruption?

The answer may be hidden within another question, would Obama be willing to use the military to cover for his own incompetence and corruption?

Just as every Christmas brings the same tired argument over nativity scenes, Christmas trees and Santa Claus, every election cycle brings forth a fresh attempt to ignore the Constitutional establishment of the Electoral College, and allow the city centers to run roughshod over rural Americans. The 2012 election is no different, but it does bring a fresh approach to the age old problem of a “popular vote” Presidential election… by having the state legislators pass a law, obligating their EC votes to the national popular vote winners.

Under this scheme, state legislatures would pass legislation that would bind them to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote—even if the candidate that got the most votes nationally did not carry that individual state. In short, this would be a de facto popular vote for President—and done without amending the Constitution.

So far, seven states and the District of Columbia (with a combined 77 electoral votes) have enacted laws that do precisely this. Should similar laws be enacted in states with an additional 193 electoral votes, de facto popular election of the President will be achieved.

The California legislature, firmly in Democratic hands, was poised to pass similar legislation this week, but with opponents raising fierce objections, the vote was delayed. In Delaware, newly elected state GOP Chairman John Sigler told us, “Liberal Democrats in the state legislature have offered HB 55, and all the Republicans are against it. Republicans here are strongly opposed because it would repeal the Electoral College by implication. And in basically writing off many states, rural areas, and people, it would lead to rule by tyranny.”

As of the end of April 2011, Vermont – Bernie Sanders territory – became the eighth voting arena to enact such legislation. The others are New Jersey, Maryland, Massachussetts, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington State and Washington DC.

This is a completely different concept than the more common winner-takes-all method used by 48 states. In this case, a state’s vote is cast per their electors, but can be changed by national popular vote after the fact. Who in the world could think that a popularity contest should be a state’s deciding factor? And what state legislator thinks this is appropriate representation for his/her constituents?

This back door movement traces it’s roots back to the Al Gore disgruntled in 2001. The Wikipedia history of the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” cites the 2006 created non-profit to advocate for this “compact” hit the ground running, and had it introduced into 42 state legislative sessions by 2007. To date, only 8 of them have been enacted into law, translating to 77 guaranteed “popular vote” electoral votes for a US President.

All of those states with this passage are strongly leaning liberal/progressives states by tradition. What becomes more dangerous is if swing states manage to join this “compact” during a favorable political climate with their legislative make up.

Various lawsuits have been mounted… pro and con… on the concept of EC vs it’s reflection of a popular vote. In 2008, Washington DC Green Party member, Asa Gordon, mounted a legal challenge, which met the same fate as many legal arguments for more lofty causes… dismissed for lack of standing. Gordon’s lawsuit, targeting then Veep, Dick Cheney, was in fear of Cheney’s power, presiding over the Senate, and how his power would affect certification of the 2008 election results.

Gordon’s lawsuit is the favored legal template for progressives, seeking to reform the EC into a popular vote movement. Apparently, when the cause is near and dear to a progressive’s heart, they see a “lack of standing” – or a non ruling on the merits – as a bonus. Other cases with dismissals for the same standing reason, and with less popular causes, have not enjoyed the dismissal’s elevation in stature.

But the ruling on Gordon v. Cheney, now Gordon v. Biden, provides a blueprint for future progressive civil actions to reform the Electoral College to reflect the popular vote in presidential elections.

“I am very pleased with the ruling, but unsatisfied to the extent that I plan to appeal what I deem to be the court’s error to deny me personal standing,” said Asa Gordon. “The civil action was not only motivated by my personal standing as an injured voter, but the main objective was to determine the legal viability of the 14th Amendment’s Mal-Apportionment Penalty clause pleaded before the court that would democratize the Electoral College. The court granted the dismissal order predicated on a memorandum opinion that did not reject the constitutional arguments I pleaded before the court.”

The District Court, citing case law precedents, ruled that “a pro se plaintiff… cannot adequately represent the interests of other class members.” The court granted the dismissal motion, stating: “Because Gordon’s alleged injury is not ‘fairly traceable’ to the Vice President’s actions, which in fact are purely ministerial, but rather is attributable to the actions of third-party states and state officials, he fails to satisfy the causation element of standing. Therefore, he is unable to prosecute this action.”

What a bonus…. if they can talk the majority of high EC vote states into passing similar “national popular vote changes the state EC votes” legislation, there is no need to “reform” the Constitutional system set down by our Founding Fathers. They’ve found the back door…

As long as there are active progressives in our nation, bent on changing the Founders “Republic” to their desired “Democracy”, the push for voter and state inequity will continue. A quest that I’ve always found ironic. A liberal/progressive community is so all fired for “democracy” in our republic, but don’t recognize the overt lack of “democracy” when the few states with high population control political power over all 50 states. i.e. just how “democratic” is it for 5-8 states to dictate to 50?

But the same concept of the Electoral College, designed to prohibit that imbalance of voter power, also extends to the Senate. If we abolish the EC, why wouldn’t we then abolish the Senate where all states… regardless of population… have equal representation, and act as a balance to the House who’s membership is dictated by population? For that matter, using the same theory these state bills do, why doesn’t the Senate now have to automatically pass anything the House does, since they are more reflective of the nation’s population in membership?

This entire business of changing a state’s EC votes based on national popular vote makes me queasy… The fact that no one in any of these eight affected states has mounted a high profile challenge in the courts makes me even more queasy.

In fact, while some are quick to pronounce such a roundabout method to usurp what was clearly not the intent of the Founders – aka a President elected by national popular vote – as easily Constitutional, that is not necessarily the case. This would have to be scrutinized by a court, and determined whether it was the type of interstate pact that required Congressional approval.

Not all compacts require congressional consent under the Compact Clause. The Supreme Court has allowed interstate compacts to stand without congressional consent if they are non-political and fall outside the scope of the Compact Clause (Seattle Master Builders Ass’n v. Pacific Northwest Elec. Power and Conservation Planning Council, 786 F. 2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1986)).

To date, every case arising under the Compact Clause has concerned boundary, commercial, or regulatory compacts (Robert W. Bennett, State Coordination in Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment, 5 Green Bag 2d 141, 141 n. 2 (2002)). Because no compacts challenged for want of congressional consent have ever been found to touch upon “political” matters, by treading either on federal interests or non-compacting states’ interests, the Supreme Court has never invalidated a compact under the Compact Clause (David E. Engdahl, Characterization of Interstate Arrangements: When Is a Compact Not a Compact?, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 63, 81 (1965)). Thus, it is unclear how a court would decide this issue.

Political Consent Theory. The Supreme Court would likely consider the compact under the “Political Consent” Compact Clause theory. This reasoning evaluates whether the compact contains a political subject affecting federal interests or the interests of non-compacting sister states, in which case congressional consent is required (U. S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U. S. 452, 477 (1978)).

Proponents of the Interstate Compact argue that the compact does not actually interfere with non-compacting states and therefore may be formed without congressional approval. Opponents argue that the Interstate Compact impairs the effectiveness of non-compacting states’ electoral votes, and thus requires congressional consent (Derek T. Muller, The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, 6 Election L. J. 372 (2007)).

An excerpt from a working paper by Derek T. Miller at Penn State U is of the opinion this quasi-interstate compact would fail the Constitutional sniff test.

In Part III, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is examined and found constitutionally deficient. The Compact is actually a compact under the Compact Clause of the Constitution, because the Court has broadly construed what makes a compact. In particular, because the Compact is not effective until a critical mass of States have enacted it, and because States are constrained from withdrawing from the Compact too close to a presidential election, the Compact falls under constitutional scrutiny. Additionally, the Compact addresses a political matter that affects the interests of non-compacting sister States, and the compacting States enhance their political power at the expense of other States. The Article examines the various defenses of the Compact but finds that none of them overcome the political interests of sister States. Therefore, barring congressional consent, the Interstate Compact would fail.

Considering that the eight states that have eagerly enacted such a Constitutional suicide pact for a Presidential election are serious left leaning states, such a challenge in the courts is unlikely to happen. But with Louisiana, California and Colorado already visiting such a concept, any one of those states would effectively tip any election into the Democrat laps.

But wait… this gets better. The bizarre attempts to hand more-than-equal voting power to a urban Americans – or as former Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont called it, the “urban power grab” – brings even more “creative” analogies used by pundits to justify this movement. And WaPo’s Ezra Klein should be awarded a Most anti-Constitutionalist Pundit of the Day award for his “out of the box” analogy, suggesting that the EC is akin to giving more voting power to the young because they will be more affected by the election outcome.

WTF?

First he offers his “out of the box” idea for debate:

America should implement weighted voting to make voting more objective and fair, and give the young more power, because the consequences of political decisions will affect them the longest. Weighted voting would restore power to twenty and thirty year olds, where it resided before the advent of medical science. With the aid of computers, it would be easy to give everyone a Voting Score, just like we all have a credit score.

When he’s rightfully excoriated for such an absurd suggestion by emails and comments, he does an update, explaining his “idea” was to make a point…. that some states enjoy more voting power even tho they have smaller populations.

Some people seem to think I’m advocating reweighting votes by age. I’m not. I’m pointing out that weighting votes by state, which is what we currently do, doesn’t make any more sense. It was an important political compromise that helped coax concerned states into the union, but a lot of time has passed since then, and now it’s an anachronism that unwisely gives a resident of Montana a more powerful vote than a resident of Michigan. I’m for unweighting votes entirely, and anyone who feels themselves getting angry at the idea of tilting democracy toward the young or the college-educated other group should ask themselves whether they aren’t, also.

Below is the map of the states, and their allocated EC votes in the 2008 election.

I’m not sure just how math challenged Mr. Klein is, but I don’t see that 3 EC Montana votes is “a more powerful” voice than Michigan’s 17 EC votes.

The EC is a complex critter that has evolved over time. Congressional Research Service’s Thomas H. Neale
wrote an article in 1999, briefly touching on the Constitional origins and it’s development thru the decades. The closest it ever came to effective abolishment was the failed The Bayh-Celler Amendment, which a disgruntled Congress attempted to pass after the 1968 election of Richard Nixon, when 3rd party candidate, George Wallace, siphoned off over 13% of the vote. Opposition was not divided along party lines, but size of states lines. Rightfully so. Anything that is decided by the whims of the nation’s population ushers smaller state populations to the back of the bus.

The single most important concept is that the Founding Fathers put the system in place specifically to preserve states as a Republic. To protect them from discrimination because of size of populations. And most important, to make sure the Presidential election did not become a national popular vote. They gave the power to the states to determine how their electors were chosen. But no where does it indicate Constitutional intent to negate the state elections in favor of a psuedo national election – all based on the results of a political beauty contest. Yet this is exactly what these state bills accomplish.

MSNBC has actually admitted they are in the tank for Obama and that he is above ‘their’ critical analysis; a fact that we have known and discussed since the 2008 campaign. The fact that they manipulated a national election with their dishonesty alludes their consciousness and they still make efforts to justify their dishonesty by the supposed purity of their Socialist agenda. To portray their news casting as objective is a serious breach of the public trust and becomes increasingly dishonest and immoral because of their intentional reluctance to investigate the fraudulent or non-existant qualifications of the first president to be elected under false pretenses or at least pretenses that can’t be substantiated.

They don’t care what Obama does wrong, they will never criticize him or his policies: he is a Black liberal and not to be criticized under any circumstances. How could they justify their existence as a propaganda bureau if they called attention to Obama’s failings?

You may rest assured, that they will intensify those efforts that were ignored on Obama towards any challengers in 2012 and with that surreptitious tactic, regain their lost integrity.

If anyone ever doubts the bias within the MSM or State Directed Media, simply play this video to help them realize the truth.

The Senate of Indiana has passed an immigration bill that is similar to Arizona’s measures against illegal immigration, amid protests from some of the largest employers and business groups.

By a vote of 31 – 18 the measure was passed by the Senate and now must pass the House of Representatives. The bill will allow police to ask a person stopped for traffic violations for proof of legal residency if an officer has “reasonable suspicion” that the people may be here illegally. The bill will call for the use of English only at public meetings, web sites, and documents except in a few circumstances.

Senator Mike Delph, the bill’s author, says the bill will “send a clear message that Indiana will no longer be a sanctuary for people who are in our state and country illegally because of our federal government’s failure to act on illegal immigration.”

The Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce says the bill will have a chilling on convention business and other businesses. “It will have a negative economic impact on the state of Indiana,” according to Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Director Angela Smith-Jones and maintains that immigration issues should be handled on the federal level. The Chamber of Commerce intends on lobbying the House of Representative to stop the bill.

Of course those who favor illegal aliens overrunning our country want the federal government to handle immigration issues because the Obama administration refuses to protect our borders and is a leading advocate of illegal immigration, a situation that has terrorists being smuggled across our Southern border by human smugglers from Mexico.

The majority of Americans favor the overwhelming of the American labor pool during a period of high unemployment and the overburdening of our schools and emergency rooms by the illegal aliens. Obama seems to feel that illegal aliens will help the economy and make for an influx of Democratic voters for the 2012 election, an influx that will be needed by Obama if he wants to be reelected in the next presidential election.

With the passage of Arizona’s SB 1070, President Obama appealed to ‘America’s sense of fairness,“to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” Again Obama offered empty platitudes that sound nice at campus rallies, but offer Americans that are hurting economically only meaningless words that find a sympathetic ear among Obama’s public employee unions.

There are several more states following the leads of Indiana and Arizona: Arkansas, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.to enforce the laws that the Obama administration refuses to enforce. If the Obama administration heads into the 2012 election with law multiple lawsuits against individual states, Obama will only handicapping his chances for reelection. America is anxious to take back its country from the George Soros puppet who parrots the Open Society and Open Borders ideology of Soros.

Fearless Reader proves his prowess at speaking extemporaneously and without benefit of his faithful friend TOTUS.

We are seldom allowed insight in to the intellect of our president as an extempore speaker and the folowing quotes will clear up several misconceptions as to why.

“Part of the facts is understanding we have a problem, and part of the facts is what you’re going to do about it.”

“You’re free. And freedom is beautiful. And you know, it will take time to restore chaos and order – order out of chaos. But we will”

“I’m going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy talking on the issue, I guess it’s the mother in me.”

“My job is to, like, think beyond the immediate.”

“After all, public education is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society.”

“It’s negative to think about blowing each other up. That’s not a positive thought. That’s a Cold War thought. That’s a thought when people were enemies with each other.”

“It’s very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America.”

“Columbia carried in its payroll classroom experiments from some of our students in America.”

“See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh*t, and it’s over”

The collective thoughts of the Obamas as a couple reflect true genius and character of the First Couple.

“When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.” – Barack Obama

“If you don’t know how many houses you have, then it’s not surprising that you might think the economy is fundamentally strong. But if you’re like me, and you got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don’t lose their home, then you might have a different perspective.” -Barack Obama

“The truth is most Americans don’t want much. Folks don’t want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit, but that’s out of reach for them. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” -Michelle Obama

As a speaker, You should always assume someone is recording

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

From Barack Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” published in 2004. Written by domestic terrorist William Ayers from notes provided by Barack, according to Michelle. He allows us an intimate look in to the most intimate aspects of his personality.

“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.” -Barack Obama

“In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school … I studied the Koran.” -Barack Obama

“The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy. He converted to Islam.” -Barack Obama

“Lolo (Obama’s step father) followed a brand of Islam … I looked to Lolo for guidance.” -Barack Obama

“I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.” -Barack Obama.

During a campaign, it is occasionally necessary to speak without direction or scripted speech. It is an ability that defines an ability to think clearly and concisely.

I’m here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis.
- Barack Obama. Speaking via satellite to Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008.

Let me introduce to you the next President — the next Vice President of the United States of America, Joe Biden.
- Barack Obama. An introduction by Obama during their first campaign rally, Springfield IL, August 23, 2008.

Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee — which is my committee — a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.
- Barack Obama. Referring to committee he didn’t serve on, Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008.

Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under a McCain…administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change.
- Barack Obama. Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008.

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
- Barack Obama

Hold on one second, sweetie, we’re going to do — we’ll do a press avail.
- Barack Obama

To female reporter for ABC’s Detroit affiliate who asked about his plan to help American autoworkers.

I’ve now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.
- Barack Obama

Asked a foreign policy question while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania during the 2008 campaign.
It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
- Barack Obama

Trying to rationalize the difficulty swaying the blue collar vote during th 2008, presidential campaign.
The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, you know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred in our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.
- Barack Obama

Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions.
- Barack Obama. Frustrated by reporters after a news conference, 2008 presidential camapaign.

In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.
- Barack Obama. Remark concerning a tornado that killed 12 people, 2007 speech blooper.

Ok, look, you know, when I was a kid, I inhaled frequently. That was the point.
- Barack Obama. Explaining his drug abuse to magazine editors, November 2006.

About those Lies concerning the question of faith>

”What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith…”

Barack Obama. An interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who gallantly plunged in to correct Obama by saying ”your Christian faith,” and Obama was given the opportunity to implement damage control.

Without a complicit press and television networks acting as de facto propaganda bureaus and the ever present omnipotent teleprompter directing the chaotic, incoherent, and nonsensical thoughts of Barack Obama, this man would never even be given a serious consideration for national office. Yet there are those among us who are quick to caution us about the covert superior intellect of the man, reflecting the successful propaganda efforts. I can only say that if you believe the man has a superior intellect, you won’t find evidence within these quotes, but please provide me with some shred of evidence of this superior intellect. Send me an outline and I will write an essay on his brilliance. I’m not talking about being a token editor of the Harvard Law Review and writing absolutely nothing or writing a book his wife admitted they had to get a domestic terrorist to write. I want some hard cod evidence that proves the man can string a series of cognitive thoughts in a logical sequence, that’s all, just some shred of real evidence that the man isn’t a blithering idiot, without resorting to the omnipotent wisdom of TOTUS.

For the record, I m not so concerned that Obama might be a Muslim, but the fact that he feels compelled to lie about his Muslim sympathies is disturbing and brands him as being unworthy and unqualified.

Henry VIII IV:2

Finished work on a hot fall day down in Cajun country. It was a ramshackle trailer house and a pile of rubble I wouldn’t classify as a scrap heap, but these Coonasses led out some beautiful horses. They were Thoroughbred race horses and they told me about the races they’d won over the last thirty years at the Fairgrounds In new Orleans and how they had taken a horse up to Arlington in Chicago and got beat by a whisker for $75,000 in a Grade One Stakes race.

Now, I take all these horse stories with a grain of salt, some of them are accurate and some of them get better for the telling. However, these guys had an excellent breeding program and they knew how to take care of a horse. They couldn’t do carpenter work, that was obvious and they didn’t have that innate ranch savvy that enables a guy to build things out of scrap that work as well or better than store bought, but they sure knew how to take care of and condition a horse.

We worked on a dozen, they paid me cash money and asked if I’d like a cold beer. I thought they had some in the house, but then I looked and saw they didn’t have power lines. They told me to follow them to the local club for a cold beer. It was a gray plywood building that had a six foot ceiling and no electricity. There were a couple of oil lanterns for light and the place had a dirt floor. It was primitive but they had the beer cooled down in a galvanized water trough packed with ice. The beer was cold and that was the main thing as I listened to more horse racing stories. The bartender brought us another round and I noticed a tattoo that chilled me to the bone. On his bicep, he had two pitbulls standing on their hind legs trying to get at each other’s throat. Now, I knew why this place had a dirt floor, it was a dogfighting bar.

In my life, I love dogs much more than horses and would never derive pleasure from watching dogs fight. I’ve had Pitbulls and pits crossed with Catahoulas all my life, I have found them to be loyal loving dogs and every time one died, there was profound melancholy in my life.

I became uncomfortable with this place and the people. I wanted to ditch my hosts as soon as possible and never come back. As a matter fact, my dogs had saved my life once and that of my friend Knarley Manners.

Suddenly, the door opened and a man walked in with a burst of glaring sunlight. He walked up to the bar and said, “I’ve got $500. for the man who thinks his dog can roll with my dog, may the best dog win. The place got real quiet, the bartender walked up to the man and said, “We’ll roll your dog, but we gotta see him first.” Now I was in trouble, if I stood up to leave, I might get a knife in my back for the effort, these gents didn’t look like the kind you would meet at church. I stayed seated and tried to ignore the conversation.

The new man walked out and came back in with one of the funniest looking dogs, I have ever seen. It was a short yellow dog with bowed legs and bug eyes. Everyone laughed at his dog and thought he must be playing a stupid joke, but the man laid his five hundred on the bar; chairs were pushed aside and men struggled to get money out of their pockets to cover the bet on the yellow dog. I couldn’t believe that I was trapped and about to watch something I didn’t want to see.

The bartender went out the back door and came back with a large black Pitbull. He had many horrific scars on his body and head; he was a fighter from way back. The yellow dog watched the old black Pit as the bartender put him on the floor. I thought the man must have been nuts, for surely this yellow dog was about to die a horrible death; how could anyone be so stupid? The old Pit was in no hurry, he knew this game well, he walked slowly around the little yellow dog about four feet away looking for an opening. The Yellow dog made sure the Pit stayed directly in front of him by pivoting on his hind legs and slowly shuffling his front legs. Both the dogs seemed wary of what the other one was capable of and they were being very careful while displaying complete confidence and a relaxed poise.

Just as the Pit started his second time around, the yellow dog rushed the pit and grabbed hold of his chest, the Pit groaned and fell, the yellow dog then shook the old Pit and the old dog let out a death rattle and died.

The bartender rushed up to the man, spun him around and demanded to know what kind of dog that yellow dog was.

The stranger laughed, “Well, before I cut off his tail and painted him yellow, he was an alligator.”

If you are like most people, you swallowed this story like Americans swallowed the myth of Obama. Americans were told over and over they were getting the most intelligent man in the world by a corrupt and duplicitous press and we ended up with a teleprompter reader who fancies himself a Marxist Revolutionary. Well, the MSM, George Soros, and the Progressive Socialists hired the soulless harpies of Madison Avenue to concoct the biggest con job ever perpetrated on the American people; in fact, the con was so good that over half of the people who swallowed the lies still believe them. The rest of the world has seen through the charade and recognize his incompetence and those of his bumbling administration, the same ones who are so committed to Stalin, Lennin, Mao, and Marx. He is driven, either by being a complete nincompoop or an evil Marxist bastard, to destroy the economic solvency of this great nation in four years or less. The rest of the world leaders who were once enamored of the myth of Obama regard him as a dithering fool and are about to leave the United States out of serious negotiations and efforts to salvage the world economic situation, so glaring is the incompetence and stupidity of Obama.

Now do you see how several men made a mistake in the dim flickering light and bet against the yellow dog?