The SoapBoxers

This week is the Republican National Convention.  Anger seems to be the word of the week so far.  The convention got off to a rocky start when hurricane Isaac threatened Florida, forcing a very abbreviated first day session that lasted exactly two minutes.  Oddly, hurricanes also affected the 2004 and 2008 conventions.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has always had very devoted supporters.  The average depth of support among his fans is certainly greater than that of any other candidate.  The only probably is that a “eh, I like the guy” vote counts just as much as a “I’d die for the guy” vote.  Paul has never been able to muster a strong breadth of support – and that’s what really matters.

While Paul was basically a non-factor, his supporters have claimed that while he didn’t win, this campaign was the start of a revolution, and that the Ron Paul 2012 campaign would set policy within the Republican party for the next generation, on par with Ronald Reagan.  Really?  A fringe candidate with support of a small minority of party members is on par with a two term president?  If Romney wins the presidency, I’d expect the GOP to close ranks behind him a bit and at least shift somewhat toward him. 

Paul supporters did cause at least one change, though.  State delegates will now be bound by the results of the state’s primaries and caucuses.  Paul’s support had been able to lobby to become delegates, such that their representation as delegation was far out of proportion with the percentage of votes Paul had received in primaries and caucuses.  In other words, they were essentially disenfranchising the voters by making the election results irrelevant.

The platform

The Republican platform is far to the right of where Mitt Romney stands.  It has been characterized as “activist written”.  The platform advocates making English the official language, banning all abortions (even in case of rape), and changing medicare to a voucher-based system.  So, basically, the platform alienates legal immigrants, women, and senior citizens.  Prominent Republicans such as John Boehner and Jeb Bush have spoken out against the platform.

I’d expect to hear the Romney/Ryan commercials tout their own platform, while essentially ignoring the official Republican platform.  There is a link to Romney’s plan at the bottom of this article – it’s a free Kindle download. 

It will be interesting to see what role the platform could play in congressional races, however.    A Democratic candidate could push an opponent to either embrace the platform (alienating independents and affected groups) or reject it (possible reducing voter turnout among their base).

This is how we feed the animals

One of the lowlights from the convention were two partygoers who threw nuts at an African-American CNN cameraman, saying “this is how we feed the animals.”  The two attendees were immediately removed by police.  I realize that a large amount of alcoholic beverages are probably consumed by convention attendees, but is it asking too much to remain civil?

The convention released a statement condemning the acts.  I’m sure that the vast majority of Republicans would condemn this behavior as well.

The national race

I always laugh when I hear people talking about the national polling number.  It’s almost as if they believe there is a national election for president.  That’s not really the case.  We operate on the Chuck E Cheese model.  There are 51 presidential elections.  The winner of each elections get a certain number of tokens.  If you get 270 tokens, you can trade them in for the big prize.

You can safely ignore the national polling numbers and the numbers from about 3/4 of the states.  A handful of battleground states are the only ones that really matter.
 

Todd Akin

Akin; adjective. Of similar character. It is such a perfect last name for that new pariah of the Republican party, Missouri Congressman and Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin. That is despite all their faux outrage at his comments this week on legitimate rape and the magical woman parts during it, they really posses the exact same thoughts on the ideas expressed and have so for a while now. So why all the outrage then? Well Congressman Akin violated the first rule of idiot club, don’t express our batshit ideas to the public during a general election. That is the plain and simple reason. Just this past year and Akin along with current Republican Vice Presidential choice Paul Ryan (and 186 others) put forth a bill that would set the limitation for exceptions in an abortion bill to “forcible” or as it can be put by their terminology, real rape. Just like legitimate, just using a different word.

Now however in the aftermath of the Akin comments Ryan is all saying well rape is rape. Nice to know Congressman Ryan, but that is not how you felt the other day, and how am I to think this will be your opinion again when the heat is down on these recent comments. Shoot Mitt Romney even sought the endorsement of one of those doctors akin was talking about that try to peddle his pillow pants theory of special lady parts during rape, well real rape. If you got pregnant you weren’t actually raped is what one is made to believe by their misplaced and ridiculous “science” there.

Sure Akin has came out to apologize and I find it very heartfelt, at least in the since that he is sorry that there was the outrage over his comments, but I don’t find the man very sorry about what he said as it is still what he believes. In fact though I find his apology ad he is running quite humorous. I mean I keep on envisioning I am watching a disgraced televangelist crying “I have sinned” into the camera when I am watching the thing. I don’t really believe the apology, just like I don’t believe the outrage from the politicians on the right. Akin is sorry that he spoke what he thought and the politicians in charge are upset that it hurts their chances at winning, plain and simple. Listening to conservative radio the past couple days you find plenty of nuts defending him and even those trying to defend his theory on how not to get pregnant while being actually raped. It only seems to be the talking heads and politicians on the right that are upset, the evangelicals are standing up for the man. Give them their credit though, at least they are sticking to their beliefs there, no matter how misguided and inaccurate they are.

I am happy to see that Akin has did not bow to the pressure and drop out of the race (well yet that is) as he shouldn’t have to. Now your going to say of course you feel that way you are a liberal. Well him being the worse candidate now has nothing to do with my opinion on this matter, that part is just a bonus. Why I feel this is because he is who the voters wanted. He was selected by Missouri Republican voters who clearly knew who they were voting for in this race, this is why Democrats funnelled money into ads against his opponents in the primary.

Akin has notoriety for speaking his true thoughts and beliefs quite often and usually are pretty crass and out there. I mean the man said that if you are liberal you hate God. He also compared student loans to cancer, said there should not be a minimum wage and so forth. Get the picture? It is not like this is the first time he has put his foot in his mouth, its just this is the first time there was enough outrage and spotlight on them to make him have to “apologize” for it.

Now though the party bosses and talking heads seeing a chance at a Senate seat turn falling from their grasp and possibly even the electoral votes from a state they had locked down that they need to shun and outcast him, for now that is. He stayed in the race and for now at least they are promising not to put any money into his campaign from here on out. Which is fine, but they have no right to overturn the will of the party voters in the primary that was just held. They will try to distance themselves as the election draws near from both Akin and his comments, heck they even have forbade him from coming to Tampa for the convention now. I wonder if they will blame Hurricane Isaac on him as well?

Judge Tom Head

Well outside of Akin who obviously is a bad nut, my bad nut of the month is Lubbock County, TX Judge Tom Head, the epitome of why judges should not be elected. Head stated that if Obama is reelected he foresees civil war because Obama is gonna hand over the country to the United Nations and they are going to go out and try to put down resistance to them and he said him and the sheriff down there are gonna stand their ground in front of their UN vehicles and tell them they ain’t gonna have it. I hear and see this kind of nutbag conspiracy all the time on a pretty daily basis these days so it is not like the judge here is alone in his ideology here. Shoot if Romney though the general election crowd would believe it he would be spouting this off as talking points. I do wonder though now if Judge Head does not bow to pressure to resign, which I don’t foresee him doing, can those who go in front of him as for a mistrial on the grounds the judge is mentally ill?

Time to “shut it down”?

The Missouri Senate seat held by Claire McCaskill was one being targeted by the Republicans this election.  Missouri historically is a swing state, McCaskill narrowly won in 2006, and she had been dogged by issues related to use of a private plane, including allegations that she failed to pay $280,000 in property taxes on the plane.

In short, McCaskill was vulnerable, and the Republicans were about to dump a ton of money into this race in an effort to tilt the balance of the Senate.  Representative Todd Akin emerged the winner of a three way primary and appeared to be on track to unseat the incumbent.

And then Sunday happened, and Akin uttered this quote in an interview.

It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare.  If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child. – Representative Todd Akin

If you’re not familiar with the medical science Akin is referring to, don’t feel bad.  The reason you haven’t heard about it is because it’s not true.  Akin later apologized, saying that he misspoke.  This wasn’t a case of someone misspeaking.  Mitt Romney accidentally introducing Paul Ryan as the next president of the United States was an example of someone misspeaking.  Akin’s comments seemed well rehearsed – he meant what he said.  He was simply wrong.

Republicans Distancing Themselves

Republican leaders have been quick to criticize Akin’s comments.  There’s a very good reason for this – this don’t want to be associated with Akin in any way.  Membership in a political party creates a guilt by association (on the flip side, party members can claim credit for the good deeds of other party members).  While many Republicans may have abortion views that are somewhat similar to Akin’s, most (all?) don’t agree with his comments about a woman’s body being able to prevent pregnancy after a rape and they find the use of the term “legitimate rape” to be offensive.

In or Out?

Until 5 PM today, Akin can withdraw from the race fairly easily.  After 5 PM, it would require a court order and he would be forced to pay for the re-printing of any ballots.  To this point, Akin has been insistent that he will stay in the race.  Republicans are trying to get him to withdraw so that they can replace him with an unsoiled candidate.  On CBS radio news this morning, they reported that a Republican operative was frustrated after conversions with Akin.  The operative was quoted as saying “you can’t reason with an idiot.”

His opponent, McCaskill, agrees with him, stating that the voters chose him and they have a right to have him on the ballot in November.  The fact that she’s be able to hit him over the head with this issue repeatedly definitely works to her advantage.

Senator Claire McCaskill

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has told Akin that if he stays in the race, they will not back him.  For those who aren’t familiar with this group, they raise a large amount of funds at a national level, and then spend it on races where the money can make a difference in determining the outcome.  (Yes, the Democrats have a similar group, and there are corresponding groups for the House.)  Without the support of the NRSC, Akin would be limited to whatever funds he can raise (or borrow) on his own – putting him at a decided disadvantage, since the National Democratic Senatorial Committee will almost certainly spend money to support McCaskill.

Even if Akin drops out of the race, McCaskill is likely in the position of advantage.  Whomever is picked as a replacement will not have received a plurality of support in the primary – and may not have even participated in the primary.  McCaskill could attack the Republicans as circumventing the traditional process by hand-selecting her opponent, rather than letting the voters decide.

In the end, the Republicans are between a rock and a hard place, although having Akin drop out would probably be best for them.

Effects on the Presidential Race

Missouri is one of just a handful of states that is truly up for grabs in the presidential election.  The majority of states are pretty solidly red or blue.  Recent polling in the state shows a virtual dead heat between Romney and Obama.  It’s possibly that Akin’s statement may cause some undecided voters in the state to have a negative opinion of the Republican party as a whole – causing them to either flip to Obama or simple staying away from the polls.  If Obama wins an electoral college squeaker due to a narrow win in Missouri, Todd Akin’s comments might be what puts him over the top – another reason why the Republicans are desperate for Akin to drop out.

Over the weekend, the presumptive Republican nominee for President announced his perspective vice presidential running mate. Mitt Romney named Paul Ryan in a well staged introduction ceremony. The press were mostly upset that they did not figure out who it would be, although some claimed to have known and uncovered the choice before the announcement. I am not sure why this is important, but being first is apparently much more important than being right. I am surprised that more people did not claim advanced knowledge since so many names were bandied about including Ryan.

You may like the choice or you might not. You may be one of those people who would like the choice so long as an “R” followed the name, just as you many be someone who hates the choice for the same reason. One of the telling facts is that Ryan is one of the so called Tea Party candidates. He also presented a budget that would in theory balance the budget (a budget that the majority leader of the Senate refused to receive than stated that the house was not participating in the budget process).

So now, the pros and cons will be broadcast long and loud. If you want to know how Ryan is demon spawn, just tune in MSNBC. If you want to know that he was anointed by God to save the world, turn in to talk radio around noon. If you want to know what Ryan is running on, watch the full coverage from CNN or PBS. Don’t expect to learn anything from the advertisements, they will continue to define the positions of the opposition. Eventually what each candidate wants to do will float to the top.

So how important is this announcement? First and foremost, it provided a financial stimulus to the Romney campaign. It also provided the Obama campaign some much needed air time on all of the major networks. The President will not have the same opportunity since his running mate is assumed to be Biden again. Of course he could make some big news by choosing someone else at the convention.

It is actually unfortunate that the two major candidates are already set. This just extends the time the bitter partisan commentary must be endured. On the other hand we only have to here the sins of two sets of men.

The best way to find out about these candidates is to do your own research. If you have already made up your mind, you have little or no work to do. If you still are open for debate, check out each candidate’s web sites. If you let their opponent define their position, you have already made your choice. Once you have actually determined what the candidates claim that they want to do, you can do further research on what each of them have done in their careers. All four men have extensive public records to review. Always note the source. If it is the Huffington Post or other such site, you can be assured that the President is the hero and Romney is the arch-villain. If the source is World Net Daily or similar site, the President will be the anti-Christ and Romney the savior.

Please take the time to be informed. Please vote. This freedom and responsibility are what make our country great. It makes the common man equal to the elite and maintains our republic for our children.

James Holmes

Water tossed into hot oil. Sodium tossed into water. Mentos tossed into a 2 liter bottle of soda. Some of the least restrictive gun laws in the world combined with a mental health care system that’s decades behind. Yup, I’m talking about things that don’t go well together.

First, let me get this out of the way: I’m not advocating taking away anyone’s rights to own a firearm. If I had more income to toss away I’d consider owning a handgun myself for the purpose of target shooting at a range – the Glock 19 just looks darn cool. That being said, there are a lot of improvements we can make to ensure mentally unstable people get the help they need. In absence of a gun, a desperate and mentally ill person will use other methods – in 2008 a Japanese man in Akihabara drove a truck into a crowd and then jumped out and started stabbing people. Guns don’t kill people, but they certainly make it orders of magnitude easier to kill people.

We’re all well aware of some of the more hyped mass shootings, but to see the list laid out is shocking. This list I’ve compiled, just from 1999 onward, is depressingly lengthy:

• April 1999, Columbine.
• July 1999, An Atlanta daytrader kills his family and then went to a trading firm and killed 9 more and wounded 13.
• September 1999, A man opens fire in a Baptist church in Fort Worth, Texas, killing 7.
• October 2002, A man and a minor carry out a series of 11 sniper-style shootings around the DC Beltway and in Northern Virginia.
• August 2003, A Chicago man returns to where he was fired from 6 months prior and kills 6.
• November 2004, In a hunting dispute in northern Wisconsin, six are killed and 2 are wounded.
• March 2005, A man opens fire in a church killing 7, including the pastor and the pastor’s son.
• October 2006, A milk truck driver enters an Amish school and in execution style kills 5 and severely wounds 6.
• April 2007, Virginia Tech shootings.
• August 2007, Three Delaware State students are shot execution style.
• December 2007, A 20 year old man kills 9 and wounds 5 in a shopping center in Nebraska.
• December 2007, A woman and her boyfriend shoot and kill 6 members of her family in their Washington State home, including 2 children.
• February 2008, At a clothing store in Chicago in what authorities think is a robbery-gone-wrong, a man kills 5 and wounds another. The unidentified man is still at large.
• February 2008, At Northern Illinois University a man kills 5 and wounds 21 before killing himself.
• September 2008, A mentally ill man released from prison a month earlier shoots 8, killing 6 in Alger Washington.
• December 2008, A man in a Santa Claus suit opens fire at a family Christmas party, then sets fire to the house and later kills himself. Nine were found dead in the house.
• March 2009, A recently laid off man kills 11 in multiple locations, including 2 children.
• March 2009, A heavily armed man kills 8 and wounds 2 at a Carthage, NC nursing home.
• March 2009, Six people are shot dead in an upscale apartment building in Santa Clara, CA.
• April 2009, A man enters a civic center in Binghamton, NY, and kills 13 before turning the gun on himself.
• July 2009, Eight are shot in a drive by shooting on the campus of Texas Southern University, police conclude that it was gang-related.
• November 2009, A US Army psychologist at Fort Hood, TX, kills 13 and wounds 29 others.
• January 2010, A man near Appomattox, VA, kills 8 before being apprehended by over 100 police officers.
• February 2010, A faculty member at The University of Alabama kills 3 and wounds 3 at a biology department meeting.
• January 2011, Tuscon, AZ mass shooting. 18 people are shot including sitting US Representative Gabrielle Giffords, 9 die.
• July 2012, Aurora, CO movie theater shootings
• August 2012, A suspected White Supremacist enters a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and kills six and wounds 4 before being shot by police and then dying from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Please note, this is not even a complete list.

In the vast majority of these cases the people pulling the triggers had a severe mental health problem. I could write a whole other article or three on mental health parity in the United States, but to sum it up, mental health is decades behind “the rest” of health care. Anecdotally, I can say that I’ve actually met more than one doctor who says depression is “all in your head” – while technically true, I suppose, they seem to feel it’s not unlike attitude and you can just change how you feel. In addition, mental health issues are often misdiagnosed or go years without diagnosis. For example, as recently as 2000 a study showed that up to 69% of people with bipolar disorder were misdiagnosed and the average length of time that passes without a correct diagnosis can be as much as 10 years. Even when correctly diagnosed, at times law enforcement professionals are either untrained in proper procedure or unwilling to take a claim seriously. Recent evidence shows that James Holmes’ psychiatrist warned police that he was a danger weeks before the Aurora, CO shootings.

Next, there is the very real issue of mental health issues having a stigma of weakness or instability associated with them. Many people don’t seek help for mental illness thinking that the problem is temporary, or not treatable. Others don’t seek help for fear of being marginalized – the media often associates mental illness with violence and aberrant behavior.  The glorification of the American media has molded an image of the perfect person that is often near-unobtainable. We think that everyone should be content, cheerful, witty, grounded, have a great job, and a body like a supermodel and anything outside these “norms” has something wrong with them. Even when confiding with family and friends people are often told they simply need to sleep more, or cheer up, or pray more – dangerous things to tell someone who is depressed.

Finally, mental health is still seen as a sticky area by insurance companies. It can sometimes take years between first seeing a doctor to when a patient then sees a referred psychiatrist. In 2010 in Arizona only 5% of insurance companies offered equal benefits for mental issues vs. other health issues. As recently as 2006 the National Alliance on Mental Illness gave the US a grade of “D” on mental health treatment and awareness. It’s ironic that some politicians claim the government is trying to get between you and your doctor when health care companies already do when your doctor refers you to a psychologist – all in the interest of their profit.

What can be done? First and foremost both the general public and the insurance companies need to realize that mental health is at least as important as the health of any other specific area. We are people because of our thoughts and deeds and emotions, not because we have good blood sugar levels or need a pill to get an erection. Being able to tell a doctor you’re depressed or anxious shouldn’t be a big deal. Having your health insurance fully cover your visit to a psychiatrist should be a no-brainer. If that doctor then refers you to counseling, that should also be covered. Finally better training for law enforcement on working with mental health professionals needs to be implemented. As seen with Aurora, CO, that could have made all the difference.

Mitt Romney

Harry Reid is saying that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes in past years.  Romney has released his 2010 tax return and will release the 2011 return when it is ready – but that’s a far cry from the 12 years of tax returns that his father released when George Romney ran for president.

Republican leaders are calling Reid a liar, and the result of the entire exchange is that there’s as much focus on Mitt Romney’s taxes as there is on how to solve the current unemployment problems.

That begs the question:

What is Mitt Romney hiding?

There are several possibilities.  Some are far more likely than others.

• Romney is not hiding anything – The returns from the last ten years may be near carbon copies of 2010, and Romney may be refusing to release the earlier returns on principle alone.  In my opinion, this would be a bad decision, as the failure to release earlier returns gives the definite appearance that he is hiding something.
• Romney is committing tax fraud – It’s also possible that Romney is committing outright fraud, either by failing to report income or by taking illegal deductions.  However, unless Romney and his legal tax are complete morons, this seems a pretty remote possibility.
• Romney was born in Kenya – Romney may be paying millions in taxes to the Kenyan treasury
• Romney paid $0 tax in some years – This is actually quite possible.  I’m sure that Mitt’s stock portfolio has taken a hit in several recent years.  It’s quite possible that he sold stock to lock in capital losses that would offset other income. 
• Romney had very high income – On the flip side, if Romney had a bad feeling about the market, he may have sold stock to lock in gains.  Are there years where Romney had $20, $50, or $100 million in income?  It’s definitely possible.  it’s even possible that he locked in huge gains as the market was plummeting.

Something to keep in mind is that a capital gain is often the result of many years or accumulation.  For the sake of argument, let’s say that Romney had a $100 million capital gain in 2008. The stocks in his portfolio may have appreciated over a span of 20 or 30 years, and a rate of a few million per years.  Sure, that’s a lot of money, but it’s not as if Romney opened an eTrade account one day and reaped a $100 profit the next.  The huge gain may have been recognized in 2008, but it was building up gradually over the years.

Likewise, if Romney locked in some capital gains in an effort to drop his income to $0, these losses may also have been building up for years or decades.

If you care about how much money politicians make, you really should be focusing on the average income over a long span of time, rather than cherry picking a handful of years.  If someone earns $50 million for each of five consecutive years, this is a higher total income that a person who has $0 in income the first four years and $150 million in the fifth year – even though the $150 million catches they eye.

Honestly, as long as Romney fairly reported income and deductions and paid the proper amount in taxes, I really don’t care how much he paid in taxes.  His effective rate is fairly low due to the fact that most of his earnings are capital gains.  That’s not Romney’s fault – that’s simply the way the tax code is written.

Do Christians Have Civil Rights?

Civil rights is a phrase whose origin can be traced back to the early 1700’s. The concept of individual civil rights can be traced back to England’s bill of rights in the 1600’s. Civil rights concept is almost perfectly interchangeable with constitutional rights. Constitutional rights typically refer to all of a US citizen’s rights protected by the US Constitution. Civil rights include constitutional rights while specifically referring to the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and plethora of anti-discrimination laws. Civil rights are enforceable laws protecting rights and privileges of individuals in a group.

Do Christians have civil rights? I think we can all agree that Christians are a group. I think we can all agree the First Amendment prevents limiting the free exercise of religion. Constitutional rights certainly protect Christians and other religions. This still leaves it a little murky as to whether Christians has civil rights. When we look at the most famous civil rights legislation in the 20th century, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we have our answer. This civil rights act (there were plenty more before this one) protects “all individuals”. In addition Title II, III, IV, and most of the eleven titles place religion as a protected class right along with race. Christians and other religious people without a doubt have as many civil rights as other groups.

What is religious discrimination? Religious discrimination is the unfavorable treatment or different treatment of an individual because of the individual’s religious beliefs. This includes sincerely held religious and moral beliefs. For example, if a Christian owned a business and was denied zoning, building permit or anything else that was needed to participate in the economy solely based on their religious belief is discrimination. It is a violation of their civil rights.

Let us consider other groups in the same situation. Imagine Mayor Thomas Manino, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, alderman Joe Mareno, or city councilwoman Christine Quinn opposed an establishment of business based solely on their race! Instead imagine those same people opposing female business owners. It would be a crime and equally so if discrimination was based on religion.

If you’re still not convinced then consider President Obama’s position on civil rights as stated on his webpage.

“…He knows that our country grows stronger when all Americans have access to opportunity and are able to participate fully in our economy…” [emphasis added]

The religious discrimination in our nation seems to steadily increase. A couple of high profile incidents come to mind. In 2008 McCain – Palin lost the election yet Gov. Palin’s church was set on fire. In 2010 the Cross in the Mohave Desert dedicated to WWII vets was stolen. Now most recently officials in Chicago, Boston, and NY have intimidated and threatened Chick-Fil-A because of the religious and moral beliefs of the franchise owners. President Obama should be appalled. Attorney General Holder should be investigating. The Civil Rights Commission should launch a parallel investigation.

The franchise owners and private owners of Chick-Fil-A restaurants have had their civil rights violated. You won’t find the Rainbow Coalition protesting. The Black Panthers don’t have a $10k bounty on anyone. What is going on is a peaceful expression of support for free speech and civil rights by being a patron of the Chick-Fil-A. This is powerful movement that any civil rights leader could envy. I’m feeling like chicken.

As we get closer now to convention time, when the Presidential candidates will officially start the race for the White House it is time to look at the landscape that is actually going to determine the outcome of the election. That landscape is the Electoral College, where 270 is the number you need to achieve to win the election. So who has the best shot to win the election? There are certainly at this point in time the certain locked up states for each side, so you can tell from there what ground needs to be made up to get to the magical number.

Let’s take a look at The Rombot’s locked up states and how many electors they hold for him. You might as well chalk up Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and West Virginia for the Republican nominee. So that is 186 electors in those 22 states that Mitt has in the bag right now.

Now let’s take a look at Obama’s locked up vote. You can count on Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Maine, Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland and Washington, D.C. for the Democratic nominee at this time. This accounts for 227 electors for Obama in these 18 states and one Federal District that is onboard with the reelection bid.

So that brings us to what is going to determine the election and all the coverage we will continue to see from now until election day, the battleground states. Now some of what is left is more likely to go to one candidate or the other but they are close enough at this point to describe them as where the battle will be waged in this election. There is one state in particular that four electors are with the Republicans already. That state is Nebraska, one of two states that divided their electors by congressional districts. So right now figuring that in Romney’s current number is 190. So going into the battleground states Romney needs to compile at least 80 more electors to win the election. The President on the other hand needs just 43 more electors to get a second term.

So lets look At this battleground with the electoral votes for each state in parentheses. We have the one elector available in Nebraska that I mentioned already, then we have Nevada (6), Colorado (9), Iowa (6), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), New Hampshire (4), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15) and Florida (29). Obviously with only 43 electors needed to win, the President has the easiest road to get to the victory here, but lets break it down state by state with the current polling info from Real Clear Politics.

Nevada: RCP Average 5/22-7/18 Obama 48.8 Romney 44.3
Colorado RCP Average 6/6-7/13 Obama 46.5 Romney 43.5
Iowa: RCP Average 5/22-7/15 Obama 45.8 Romney 44.5
Ohio: RCP Average 6/19-7/18 Obama 47.3 Romney 43.0
Pennsylvania: RCP Average 6/19-7/23 Obama 47.3 Romney 41.5
New Hampshire: RCP Average 6/20-7/15 Obama 47.3 Romney 44.3
Virginia: RCP Average 6/25-7/17 Obama 46.0 Romney 44.8
North Carolina: RCP Average 6/24-7/18 Romney 47.0 Obama 46.6
Florida: RCP Average 6/19-7/19 Obama 45.8 Romney 44.7

I could not find any real polling data on the Nebraska 2nd District electoral vote up for grabs, but if I were to make a guess it is pretty much a complete toss up. So as you see in the current polling landscape of the battleground, Obama leads in all but one state. The leads are stronger in others but at this point with needing only 43 electoral votes to get the win it is a nice situation to be in. So lets break things down from how I think things will go on the battleground states. I am going to go out on a limb and say that Romney’s pretty much complete lack of support from the latino community not named Marco Rubio that Nevada and its six electors will go to Obama. So that makes it 233-190. Then we have Colorado, I think Obama will win Colorado but it is close, so for argument’s sake here I will put that as well as Iowa, which I also feel Obama will squeak out a win to Romney. That makes the updated tally 233-205. Now it is considered a battleground, but I do not think it really will be, I say chalk up Pennsylvania for Obama. That makes it 253-205.

Now I think Obama will take Virginia and Romney will take North Carolina when all is said and done, so that makes it 266-220. That means Obama is a mere four electors away from wrapping up his reelection bid. You take into consideration that my own previous express sentiments that Obama will win in Colorado and Iowa and he would already have the election wrapped up here with three more battle states still left here to discuss. We will play on for the sake of things with the current count being 266-220. In the end I feel Florida goes to Romney 266-249. So at this point we have Ohio and New Hampshire left and winning just New Hampshire would give Obama the win I think Obama wins there and will win in Ohio as well. I think Obama will take the NE 2nd so one more vote there. So there you have it in my scenario here it is a pretty nice path right now to reelection for President Obama on the Electoral College landscape with a 289-249 victory.

There are also many ways that this things comes down to a tie, and they could be very likely. The outcome of that could bring you President Romney and Vice President Biden. Let’s pray for the best though that it does not need to come down to that, but in my humble opinion that will be the only way that Mittens will become President is that if the House has to appoint him. We will see how things go there still are a few more months left of this seemingly never ending campaign.

Whatever possessed the Framers of the US Constitution to separate the powers of government? How does anything get done with a committee of hundreds, a committee of one hundred and a president? Obviously a majority of the power must rest in one department, one partition, one branch of government so that the people’s work is done. That branch of government is today known as the Legislative branch. For a better understanding of the intended nature of our government I try to refer to the Federalist Papers.

Separation of powers is best described by Federalist Paper 51. The powers of the three branches are separate but not all branches are created equal.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.

We see that the Legislature is intended to be the greater of the three branches. It is further subdivided into the House and Senate with the House the greater of the two. The House is greater since it truly represents the people where the number of representatives is derived from the enumeration of the population. The House must be the origin of all appropriations bills, the House has the authority to impeach, etc…

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.

Here we see from Federalist Paper 51 that though the Executive and Judicial branch are the lesser of the two, they have powers to keep each other in check. Overall, the people keep all three in check.

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government…

The Press has been described as the fourth branch of government but truly the fourth branch is the People. An informed people is an energetic check on the government.

Today President Obama has breached our republican form of government and garnered more power unto the Executive Branch than ever intended by the Framers. Executive Orders apply to the executive branch only but the uninformed people of America seem to think it’s the law of the land. Obama coined another catchphrase for his power grab calling it “We Can’t Wait”.

If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.

– President Obama

Unfortunately President Obama has gone beyond his Constitutional powers. Obama works in a region transcending the Constitution and within the permissive will of Congress. Obama has restored funding to the terrorist organization Hamas despite federal law. Obama has restored funding to Egypt despite federal law. Obama has reduced deportations of illegal immigrants despite federal law. President Obama funds his czars despite being defunded by Congress. Obama creates czars despite no Senatorial consent as required by the US Constitution.

This unnatural power imbalance should result in the House restoring the proper Constitutional balance of power and impeach President Obama. Congress has failed to act and now it is incumbent upon the people to restore the republic, to be the check on the government that Federalist Paper 51 describes. We must hold Congress accountable for their inaction and unwillingness to defend their Constitutional powers. We the People must fire President Obama for his unilateral unconstitutional rogue behavior or it is the end of a republic.

Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the majority opinion.

Don’t spike the ball. This is what the Crying Man and his cohorts in Congress focused on leading up to today’s decision by the Supreme court on the Affordable Care Act or more commonly known as Obamacare. They did not want to upset the common folk and possible voters in the upcoming elections by having too joyous of a reaction to what they felt was going to be a Supreme Court ruling in the favor of their ideals. Man, they must have really been blindsided when the ruling came down today in favor of upholding Obamacare, especially when the deciding vote ended up being one of their own. So it has already been a pretty chipper beginning to a day for me, but should I have this good of a feeling. Oh what the hell, screw this I am spiking the ball. IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL.
BITCHES!

Actually that was a tweet this morning from the DNC executive director when the ruling came out, but its sums up my sentiments exactly. A man the Republicans thought they had in the palm of their hand ended up being the deciding vote against them and Kennedy sided with them. Oh the irony. Granted in his opinion on the ruling Chief Justice John Roberts was pretty political with his rhetoric about the President, but did uphold the right of Congress to mandate people having healthcare coverage as it is in ways a tax. I bet Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito are now no longer on speaking terms with the Chief Justice after his ruling. I mean the same Court that brought you the personhood of Corporate America and unlimited secret campaign spending to buy elections, just saved Obamacare. Oh the agony!

The ruling was pretty much a sweep across the board in favor of upholding all of what was before the court. The ability for 26 year olds to be on their parents’ insurance was upheld. The ability for Congress to regulate that people with pre-existing conditions to be able to be covered by insurance was upheld. Most importantly and the most debated part of the decision is that the individual mandate was upheld as a taxing mechanism. Now I do not really like the wording with the ruling there as it just added more fuel to the fire for the illogical right. The only down part in the ruling was that the Medicaid expansion was struck down, but would be upheld if Congress were to take out the clause punishing states by withholding current Medicaid funds if they did not comply with the expansion. I agree that that part should be taken out and if it were not for the Congress that don’t do anything (sorry my kids have been watching Veggietales a bit much lately) it would be able to be remedied quickly.

Well that is about it for this month. Ah what a feeling. I will open up the comments section to discussion on the SCOTUS ruling. I will try to answer comments as soon as I see them. I’d love to see some discussion on this. Certainly a phrase I would never have thought I’d say. Thank you Chief Justice Roberts for making my day and slightly restoring my view of the Supreme Court if only just for one ruling.