Faction creates violence.  A fundamental purpose of our constitutional republic is to protect citizens against the tyranny of a group from oppressing the rest of society by its beliefs and ideology.  Madison wrote about factions in Federalist 10: “The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into public councils have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished…”.   Madison writes that a faction is a number of citizens amounting to a majority or a minority united by a passion or interest adversed to the rights of other citizens or the community.

This National Popular Vote movement is just such a faction.  It is an effort to undermine the constitutional process of a Presidential election and create confusion.  Under Article V there are two methods to make changes to the Constitution but by design they are arduous and would require rigorous public debate and agreement.  Indeed, the Electoral College was amended by the XII amendment.

But this is not the way of factions.  The problem with the Constitution as expounded for over a hundred years is that it is too cumbersome and slows down progress. Progressives want to go around it.  Besides, the document that governs us was written long ago by white men who were slave holders to hear its supporters tell it.

At the public hearing on this topic at the Committee for Veterans and Legal Affairs I heard the proponents first hand.  A member of the committee stated that the use of electors was anti-democratic and provided the southern slave states with an advantage because of the three-fifths clause.   Never mind that the northern states pushed for this compromise to reduce southern power not increase it.  The south was pushing for a one-for-one count to increase their representation in the what was to become the House of Representatives.  This was only indirectly related as the three-fifths clause was mostly discussed July 11-14 and 16 and the Electoral College not until September 4 and 6.

The committee member may not be aware Democracies have been throughout history to be mobs.  A country our size would not have able to function under a democracy. Instead faction, in pursuit of their interests, would have split us apart. Thankfully a republican form that incorporated elements of a democracy was created.

Another Committee member harped on the fact that as a small state we never get visits by presidential candidates, so we need to change the Electoral College.  Ask yourself: Do you need candidates to visit the state in order to decide for whom to vote for? Are we not able to determine a candidate’s positions through speeches and the nationwide press?

Another argument is one person one vote. Nine states have approximately half of the US population.  Maine is not one of them.  Worse, 146 counites out of 3,141 have about half the population.  None are in Maine.  Which person’s vote is more important: A Maine resident or a non-resident?

These arguments are spurious or at best misguided.

The Electoral College evolved after heavy debate at the convention concerning the term of the President and a form of election that would represent the people and the states. It has worked for 240 years. This project wants to remove the state influence and transfer it to the people only.

States safeguard the country from the violence of factions through boundaries.  Strong passions in one state are contained by the dispassion in others.  This movement wants to break down the state barriers and circumvent the Constitution.  Who would benefit from this?  Surely not the voters of Maine which this will disenfranchise.

 

Senator Collins once again is a “No” vote on the Republican attempt to stop the train wreck that is the ACA.  This will hurt Mainers and all Americans as we now will have to battle against the holy grail of Socialism: Single Payer Healthcare. For those of us who are tempted to rail against the Republican’s inability to repeal Obamacare (as we have been promised for years) let’s keep in mind that it is not all Republicans that are preventing it. These Republican’s can be counted on one hand and they always include Senator Collins.

Today, Senator Susan Collins demonstrated her true colors.  As a Republican member of the Senate she voted today to kill the “repeal” of Obamacare.  She voted yesterday against even allowing debate on the issue. For eight years the Republicans as a party, have been championing the repeal of the disaster that is Obamacare.  Approximately one-sixth of our economy is being destroyed by this plan, yet Senator Collins seems uninterested in this reality.  She and her Republican colleagues had eight years to come up with a plan but they didn’t.  Now that they have an opportunity to improve this debacle they can’t, or rather won’t.  I hope people understand that Senator Collins is a Progressive that only believes in big government and not solutions for the American people. Her constant calls for bipartisanship are just a front.  I wish I could say I was surprised but I am just disgusted.

Nothing in our material world can come from nowhere or go nowhere, nor can it be free: everything in our economic life has a source, a destination, and a cost that must be paid

Private property is the foundation of a free market economic system. In order to utilize property in a way that best serves your needs you first have to be acquire it, and there are costs associated with the acquisition such as time, effort or money.

In addition, if you want to keep your property, or sell it to another, there are costs associated with that. Some of these costs are explicit, for example how much you paid for your car that you want to sell.  Some are implicit: Now that I do not have a car, what will it cost to ride the bus?

The above notion that everything has a source, a destination and a cost is not only true of items that we purchase but also services that we consume.

It is clear that nothing appears out of thin air and is given to us all at no cost. The fact that sometimes it is hard to determine where the good came from, or how it got here or even if it is free to us does not diminish the fact it had a source, it arrived at its destination and someone paid for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not know who this guy is that wrote this and it does not really matter.  The article –

“The Last Crusade: Rip van Con” – summarizes the challenges that we face very well and interestingly.

Read it.

Last week, the Hillsboro school district in Oregon sent out a memo directing its staff to refrain from using images that could be construed as offensive to others such as Santa Claus.  Not using Santa Claus images was a way to respect all religious beliefs.  They claimed after the memo became public that they were not “banning” Santa Claus, you just need “to refrain” from using those images in your Christmas decorating.

Sounds like a ban to me.

To a Socialist this is a two-for-one.  As we know, Christmas is a Christian religious holiday to celebrate the birthday of Jesus.  In America, Santa also plays a large role as part of the Christmas tradition.

Giving gifts for Christmas requires buying things, a willing purchase from a willing seller. Sellers have to have items available that people want to buy and providing items that consumers want at prices they can afford is the function of capitalism. Capitalism is a system that works.

The balance to be struck at the holiday season is to not get too caught up in the commercialism of the season and to try remember the real meaning of Christmas. Remember “A Charlie Brown Christmas” anyone?

Santa Claus represents gift giving and is based on the folklore of the holiday season.  Jesus’s birthday is the Christian reason for Christmas.

Socialists despise capitalism because in this market driven system, there are winners and losers.  It is unfair that some people become rich and some people are poor. This inequality needs to be corrected by wealth redistribution.

Who will decide how to redistribute this wealth to make things equal?  The Socialist masterminds who know better how to take from some and give to others.

Does a Socialist economic model ever work? No, you just need to glance at Venezuela as the most recent example. Money is now being weighed in stores because so many bills are required to buy things that it takes too long to count it.

Socialists, to promote their agenda, incessantly attack capitalism. So Santa is on the chopping block.

Undermining all tradition is another Socialist tactic.  The Declaration of Independence states that we have unalienable rights as individuals given to us from the Creator.  For some, that Creator is represented by Jesus.

If our rights are given to us by a Creator, this will undermine the authority of the State.  In our founding documents, the Constitution, which is based on the principles in the Declaration, provide for individual liberties. How then can the State be the principal arbiter of equality?  It can’t, so it must attack these underpinnings to legitimize its authority. At the bottom of these documents is a Christian ethos that must be replaced with a Statist one.

Capitalism is inextricably connected with the individual liberties provided for in our Constitution.

The Constitution is inextricably linked to a belief in a Creator and at the time it was written the dominate belief in a Creator was a Christian one.

So two-for-one, get rid of an oppressive Santa and call into question the entire Christian tradition of Christmas as not being “overly inclusive.”

Brilliant! But really, it is just more misguided crap from the left that needs a push back.