The constitutional amendment process is a complicated and lengthy affair. This is because we cannot be certain what consequences might arise from a seemingly minor alteration of the Constitution. To be sure, exchanging the electoral-vote system for direct election would adversely impact the entire constitutional and political structure of the United States.

To begin, our Constitution is dedicated to securing everybody’s rights. This requires that we be concerned not only with size, but with the character of the majorities voting our president to office. There are many ways in which our Constitution is configured to prevent simple majorities.

▪ The federal system prevents less populous States from being engulfed by more populous States.

▪ A bicameral legislature divides responsibilities between House and Senate on grounds other than those of population.

▪ Power is invested in a non-elective judiciary.

▪ Each State has a minimum of three electoral votes in the Electoral College.

One way the Electoral College creates moderately characterized numerical majorities includes assuring that each state’s vote actually represents the state’s interests in the selection and election of Presidents. By requiring a majority of electoral votes to win the presidency, a political party must campaign in all or most of the States -expanding its base of support beyond a narrow geographical region.

Political parties must appeal to a wide range of interests in order to gain a majority electoral vote. This is an inducement to more moderate political platforms which are less likely to put off those on the fence and promotes compromise among minority factions who want their interests represented within the party, all of this taking place well in advance of elections. Compromise between minorities is what creates a majority. But it is well to remember that a party’s capacity to command the allegiance of its followers is constantly challenged. Coalitions vary and parties are elected in and out of office based on support for their platform and their adherence to the platform while in power. Parties are wise to continually seek new bases of support and not to alienate any interests.

If the Electoral College was replaced by direct election, size, not the distribution of votes, is all that would matter. State interests would no longer receive the same consideration, their power diminished under direct election. No longer compelled to moderate their views or compromise with other groups within their resident States, interest groups would radicalize the public opinion influencing our Presidential Candidates, who would no longer feel compelled to present a broadly based platform within each State, or even campaign in all the states. Minorities would find their political power greatly diminished. Our Constitution would no longer secure everyone’s rights.

For more comprehensive information about this subject, go to:
Direct Popular Election of the President
Nancy Salvato is the President and Director of Constitutional Literacy Program for Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational project whose mission is to re-introduce the American public to the basic elements of our constitutional heritage while providing non-partisan, fact-based information on relevant socio-political issues important to our country, specifically the threats of aggressive Islamofascism and the American Fifth Column. She serves as the Assistant Provost for the American College of Education and as a Senior Editor for The New Media Journal. She is also a staff writer, for the New Media Alliance, Inc., a non-profit (501c3) coalition of writers and grass-roots media outlets, and a frequent contributing writer to The World & I educational magazine.

On Sunday, an article from the Associated Press stated that, less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species, “the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in pursuit of oil and natural gas.” As far the Associated Press (and indeed, all of the mainstream media) is concerned, the survival of Western Civilization in the face of confiscatory pricing by the world’s dictatorships is of small concern compared to the very real threat of annoyance to polar bears. Is it any wonder that readership of the mainstream press is falling?

Years ago we might have chuckled at reading such a silly article and shaken our heads in comical disbelief. Today, it is clear beyond doubt that the mainstream media seeks to stage a coup by imposing their beliefs and values on the citizens of this country through incessant propagandizing and opinion shaping. A press that writes every article with a preordained agenda and bias against individual liberties can be very dangerous if its audience does not recognize the propaganda for what it is.

Many of us thought that the mainstream media would muffle their harsh criticism of anything conservative or supportive of traditional values after the 2004 elections. Instead, the press has launched even more vigorous attacks, sensing the inability of the current administration to articulate any coherent positions on key issues or to boldly advance conservative policies. There has been a vacuum at the top in the current administration and the left has rushed in to occupy the empty ground.

Does the mainstream media understand the ultimate impact that lack of oil can have on our country and Western Civilization? Of course they do. They care more about advancing their socialist agenda in this country than they do about the economic strength and survival of the country. A sad–and frightening–state of affairs.

Let us suppose, for a moment, that the United States could secure its economic future for decades by tapping the oil that exists in Alaska, but that to do so it must obliterate the polar bear population in Alaska. If we could prevent the economic collapse of this country by proceeding to extract the oil without regard to the consequences to polar bears, should we do it? There is no question that the answer from the mainstream media and the environmentalist movement would be a resounding “No!” And there is no question that the majority of Americans, if faced with such a scenario would advocate moving forward now to drill for oil and gas.

With the survival of our airlines in question and the very real possibility of further shocks to our financial, housing and retail sectors, it is time for Americans to ignore the mainstream media and focus on electing only those representatives to Congress who will opt for survival of this country over protection of “threatened” species against “annoyance” by those seeking to insure that free American citizens can continue to travel to work and keep the economy alive and healthy.

One of the sad footnotes to all of this is that it was President Bush’s Secretary of Interior who approved putting polar bears on the list of “threatened” species, despite the evidence to the contrary. No doubt Secretary Kempthorne will be toasted by the opinion molders and cocktail party crowd as a caring and enlightened public servant. To me, he is just another bureaucrat seeking approval and adulation from those who have consistently opposed the administration of which he is a part. President Bush could have exercised his executive prerogatives to stop this action but why should he start now?

Our politicians are little more than over-compensated panderers to public opinion as defined by the glitterati of the left. Of course, the “public opinion” has been shaped and manufactured by the mainstream media and its accomplices, but few in Congress have the intelligence to understand the magnitude of the psychological warfare being waged against us or the have the courage to oppose it.

We should be thankful that there were no polar bears at Yorktown and that freedom was more important than the many annoyances that had to be suffered to secure the blessings of freedom for all of us. But Washington knew that the protection of free men threatened by government oppression and tyranny must take precedence over “annoyance” to beasts of the wild. History remembers Washington as the “father of his country”. History will remember Secretary Kempthorne and this administration as the protectors of polar bears from annoyance—if it remembers them at all.

Every election year brings with it a series of beginnings and endings. Some of these endings are fairly quick, like the likelihood that Dennis Kucinich would be the next President of the United States. Others endings drag on longer than Al Gore doing a book on tape of War and Peace in Pig Latin. (They would have gotten Joe Lieberman, but the language wasn’t kosher.)

One ending I hope comes very soon is the era of political families. Part of this sentiment stems from a statement Bill Clinton made while campaigning for his wife Hillary where he floated the idea of Chelsea Clinton running for President in 2028. If you really think about it, not only is it entirely possible that Chelsea could run for President, but it’s also entirely possible that she would win simply because of her last name. And that’s why I’m changing my last name to “Oprah.”

Looking at the current political landscape, there are only two families that one could argue are political dynasties, the Kennedys and the Bushs. As different politically as they are, they share more than a few similarities, not the least of which being that members of both families can invoke emotional responses from people of an opposing viewpoint. I know I’ve made any number of jokes about Ted Kennedy’s sobriety (or the lack thereof), and others have made jokes about how George W. Bush isn’t the sharpest bowling ball on the Christmas tree. Yet, there’s something comforting about having them both out there because even if we haven’t met them, we feel a connection to them and their families. And speaking as a comedy writer of sorts, they both give me tons of material!

In spite of the familiarity factor, I still think letting a couple of families have so much influence over American politics is a bad idea. Here’s why.

1) The second act is rarely as good as the first. Going back to the Kennedy and Bush families for a moment, we see this principle quite clearly. Aside from John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, there really isn’t anyone to take up the banner of excellence. After RFK, your next Kennedy of any portent is Ted. That’s a pretty big drop-off if you ask me, especially considering how JFK and RFK are still held in high regard. Although the drop-off from George H. W. Bush to George W. Bush isn’t as great, it’s still a drop-off. I guess the lesson we could learn is if you’re going to create a political dynasty, it’s best to be mediocre so the second generation of politicians won’t have to work as hard to be seen as great. It’s worked wonders for David Arquette, after all. This leads us to another problem.

2) There aren’t any good families out there anymore to have dynasties. Think about it. Is there another famous family with enough savvy to establish a legitimate political dynasty? You could have made a case for the Clintons had Hillary been more successful in her run for the Presidency this year. Of course, the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal pretty much nuked Bill’s chance of establishing a foothold on a favorable political history for himself and any family member who followed him into public office. Seriously, dude, you were the most powerful man in the world and could have any woman you wanted, but you settled for a mallrat from Beverly Hills? Turn in your guy card, Mr. Clinton.

3) The Founding Fathers were against it. As much as some in our society love to malign the Founding Fathers, I think they had this one right. They feared that having so much power vested with a single family was akin to a monarchy, and they’re right. And given the nozzleheads who stagger through the halls of power right now, it’s definitely a good thing that we don’t have a monarchy. Can you imagine Mad King Murtha or Queen Pelosi I? Folks, there’s a reason why John Adams and John Quincy Adams were the only father-son tandem to win the Presidency prior to the election of George W. Bush in 2000: it’s that bad of an idea!

4) “Unfinished business.” One of the great knocks against President Bush’s war in Iraq has been that he felt he had to finish the job his dad started. Regardless of how you feel about the man, I wouldn’t doubt there’s more than a little of that involved in his thinking, just as there would be with any family member with that much power. With many families, we hate to see the family name sullied by criticism from others. Throw in politics, which is a profession where egos run rampant like Godzilla in a fishing village, and you have yourself a recipe for abuse of power. Not to mention, with some folks (like me), it would be really tempting to get some level of payback for past slights. So, just be glad I don’t want to be President, Bobby Funklemeister, or you would so be getting audited.

For the sake of sanity and the possibility of getting new blood in the White House, let’s stop voting for the family members of past Presidents. It’s not that they may not be qualified for President. After all, we let Ron Paul run and he’s Ross Perot 2.0. It’s just that we need to rotate our leaders like we rotate tires. That prevents wear to our country and helps its handling. Plus, who wouldn’t want to see steel-belted politicians?

And that’s the Bottom Line.

He believed in the truth he found in his Catholic faith. He was, by all accounts, a model son, husband, father and friend. He epitomized the adage that a man who finds what he loves will never work another day in his life, and yet his work ethic was unmatched in his profession. He was thoroughly prepared and always fair. He was fiercely loyal to his favorite sports teams, especially his beloved hometown professional football team, the Buffalo Bills. And he never forgot his roots.

Tim Russert passed into eternity last week, leaving behind a wife, a 22-year old son and a lot of friends, all of whom apparently adored him.

As a political junkie and an avid watcher of “Meet the Press,” I believed him to be the best interviewer on television. Liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, if you went on Russert’s show, you would always be asked the tough questions.

Tim Russert was a Democrat and probably a liberal, but his personal ideology was not the focus of his interviews. He came up through the ranks of New York politics as an aid to Gov. Mario Cuomo and Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He joined NBC News in 1984 and became host of “Meet the Press” in 1991. In an era of partisan, ego-driven, gotcha journalism, where every pretty face on television thinks he or she is the next Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters, Russert was a simple man who did one thing very well.

Of his interview style, he spoke of modeling himself after Lawrence Spivak, the first “Meet the Press” host six decades ago in the earliest days of television.

“I had a chance to talk to him before he died,” Russert said. “He told me that the mission is to learn as much as you can about your guest, his or her positions on the issues, take the other side, be civil, and be persistent. That’s what I do.”

Tim Russert was perhaps the last reasonable liberal in the media. He never wore his partisan feelings on his sleeve. He could turn on the pressure in an interview, but you never sensed that he was being mean or uncivil. He had passion, but he also had the ability to be decent to people.

Russert was an optimist. He passionately loved his God, his family and his job, in that order. You could just picture him getting out of bed every morning and pinching himself to confirm his good fortune. He fiercely loved his father, “Big Russ,” who worked two full-time jobs to make ends meet when Tim was growing up, and he desired to pass along those working class family values to his son, Luke.

“Big Russ,” he would say, “always told me that no one owed me a favor. My challenge with my son, who has grown up meeting governors, senators and presidents, is to give him the knowledge that he is loved but not entitled.”

The talk since his untimely death has been about who will replace him. The names being bandied about are a joke. Chris “I-feel-a-tingle-up-my-leg-when-I-hear-Obama-speak” Matthews? Please.  Keith “Bush-lied-people-died” Olberman? Yeah, that’s a good plan for putting the show’s ratings in the dumper. Or how about the preening David Gregory?

My personal choice would be the current host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” former Florida Congressman Joe Scarborough, but there really is no one in the NBC Newsroom who can fill Russert’s shoes at this critical moment in history.

Tim Russert will be greatly missed during this important presidential election campaign. Unlike most of his “colleagues” in the news division at the National Broadcasting Company, he never appeared to be acting as one of a hundred press secretaries for the Barack Obama campaign. With Russert gone, the tough interviews that might have taken place — with Obama and John McCain — simply will not be there. The venue is gone, along with its host, Tim Russert, dead at age 58.

____________________________________________________________________________

© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton
____________________________________________________________________________

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
____________________________________________________________________________

-By Warner Todd Huston

Is our children learning? It seems they are learning at least one thing; their college supports Barack Obama. Students at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, are being presented with a new opportunity to indulge in what is being called a “gap year.” An idea popular in Europe, the “gap year” is a year taken off from studies between high school and the first year of college. That year is supposedly spent traveling or doing volunteer work. To regulate this, the college gives credit to the students for approved “gap year” activities, one of which is volunteering for the Barack Obama presidential campaign. No mention of allowing the same benefit for a volunteer to John McCain’s campaign is made, naturally.

Projects of the past year and the coming fall include study in Florence, Italy, and London, volunteer work on Barack Obama’s campaign, travel to Israel, and a mountaineering course. The school stays in contact with the students during the fall, helping them maintain ties to the college, register for classes, and hosts a special orientation for them before the spring semester begins.

To explain what this time wasting “gap year” is, an article from the Patriot-News reports that Europeans love this concept. The paper says that, “…slowly but surely, an old standard in European education is starting to catch on across the United States, giving some college-bound students an opportunity to catch their breath.”

Popular throughout Europe, gap years allow students the chance to defer their admission to university, and take a semester or a year off in between high school and college. With the time off, students travel, undertake volunteer projects abroad, or embark on working holidays. In 2007, 7 percent of university-bound U.K. students opted to take a gap year, according to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Services.

Why American’s would want to emulate any such practice as appears in Europe is beyond me, but it appears that some students would rather sit around and do nothing, wasting valuable time, instead of starting the next leg of their education as soon as possible.

But, I guess neither this lazy practice, nor the undue focus on Obama’s campaign, should surprise anyone where it comes to Franklin & Mashall college. If the attitude of Kabi Hartman, an advisor at the college, is any indication, American ideals aren’t something that motivates them.

“We’re more isolated, and we may not value learning other languages and cultures in the same way,” she said. “We have two weeks vacation here; over in Europe, they have six.”

Naturally, this “advisor” imagines American ways to be “isolated” and backward. And, laziness is on the menu as this woman advocates for more vacation time… and it being mandated by government, too, obviously, since that is what occurs in many places in Europe.

Oh, they are all about the need for “reflection,” easy “transitioning,” and taking “a break.” But, I wonder what they are taking a break from? Our high schools aren’t teaching much of anything anyway. What is so hard about their high school regimen that they need a break?

In fact, we are teaching so little to our high school kids that many colleges are finding that they need to institute remedial classes for incoming freshmen so that they are even able to understand the college classes they are signing up for. We fail to teach math, science, English skills, writing and history nearly across the board, so our kids aren’t being taxed very much as it is.

What could they POSSIBLY need a break from?

So, not only are we failing our children in high school, NOW we are teaching them that they deserve a break from the nothing that is their high school “education”! On top of that we are telling them that working for Obama is good for college credit but not bothering with the Republican side of the aisle. Not too partisan there, eh?

No wonder our schools are universally worthless.

“From the start, I knew I’d get better. — I always knew that it was a part of God’s plan. God’s been very faithful to me even though I don’t deserve it.” — U.S. Marine Cpl. Aaron P. Mankin

Physicians and nurses are a part of the surgical teams that bring our troops hope and healing. They are proud to serve awesomely brave men and women of America’s armed services who fight the war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. With skilled, trained hands they help our wounded warriors heal both physically and emotionally. Dedicated medical teams with heart and soul provide our troops a faster return to a well and productive life. They help improve the quality of life of our injured service men and women.
The Department of Defense created the federally-funded Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM.) Many of the doctors are board-certified plastic surgeons by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). They hold to the very highest of standards in their field.

The ASPS was established in 1931. It is the largest plastic surgery specialty organization in the world. To qualify for membership, a physician must have at least six years of surgical training, including three years in plastic surgery. Other specialties participating in AFIRM include general surgery, orthopedic, otolaryngology, and dermatology. There are special departments that offer therapy and the latest in prosthetics. The medical staff and therapists inspire their patients. In return, the patients provide an emotional uplift to the care providers. Our recuperating troops are amazing and courageous people with unquestionably remarkable fortitude and strength.

“The war has inspired great advances in plastic surgery to correct the awful injuries that are inflicted on its participants. In fact, it was the war to end all wars — World War I that challenged plastic surgeons to achieve groundbreaking advances in wound repair and reconstruction. With this latest conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, plastic surgery, once again, is integral to saving and restoring soldiers’ lives.” — Dr. Richard D’Amico, ASPS board-certified plastic surgeon.

A generous grant of $85 million has been awarded to help provide the best care for our American heroes. AFIRM is directed and funded by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, with additional funding from the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, the National Institutes of Health, and the Veterans Administration. Statistics come from the Department of Defense indicate that approximately 29,800 troops had been wounded in action in the Iraq war, and another 1,927 in Afghanistan operations this year.

All the medical procedures that are used on our troops are subsequently adapted to meet the needs of the general public, including reconstructive plastic surgery techniques. Burn and trauma patients will benefit from the latest innovations brought to light through the need to heal the wounded combat service people.

UCLA Medical Center has established a new program, Operation Mend. The very first participant in Operation Mend is U.S. Marine Cpl. Aaron P. Mankin. Aaron has a way to go before he is fully restored, being still in need of a series of facial reconstructive surgeries. He was injured in Iraq in May of 2005 when an explosive device burned more than 25% of his body, including severe damage to his face. Forty-eight hours elapsed after the explosion before help and hope arrived.

It has been no walk in the park for Marine Cpl. Aaron P. Mankin. He has undergone two-and-a-half years of multiple surgeries, including many skin grafts. May God bless the outstanding medical team led by Timothy Miller, chief of plastic surgery at UCLA Medical Center. It is Dr. Miller’s trained hands that began the process of reconstructing Aaron’s face.

Excepts from The Morning News Front: Injured Marine Returns for the Holidays - 2005

“ROGERS — He watched as the helicopter’s rotors circled above him. Told to keep his eyes open, Aaron Mankin gazed up as he lay on a cot in the bottom rack of a military helicopter in a place far from his Rogers home.

“He remembers raising his left hand, staring at the blister, noting the skin had peeled back. Mankin knew he’d been burned and he knew he was in pain, but didn’t comprehend the severity of his wounds as he noticed the beauty of the puffy white clouds against a bright blue sky above the Iraqi desert on May 11.

“U.S. Marine Cpl. Aaron P. Mankin, a 2000 graduate of Rogers High School, was riding atop the military transport vehicle when the 26-ton vehicle hit a mine that day. It was tossed straight up and slammed down on the hard sand road with its load of Marines, ammunition and other supplies.

“Mankin remembers falling in through the hatch, watching as debris crashed around him, flames flared and the hatch closed above. Emergency equipment in the vehicle apparently malfunctioned. Fire control devices didn’t go off and a rear ramp wouldn’t open. Marines were able to open a side door, but by then the ammunition had started to cook and began to go off.

“Amid the chaos, Mankin found his way out. He recalled those first-grade lessons of ’stop, drop and roll,’ and the 23-year-old rolled and rolled in the sand, stopping several times to see if he was still on fire. When he couldn’t roll anymore, his fellow Marines came to his rescue. He heard someone yell, ‘Put him out, put him out.’

“Aaron Mankin supports the effort in Iraq and is proud of the freedom that the United States has helped bring to the Iraqi people, despite his severe injuries and his fear for the safety of his fiancé”.
Full Article

Aaron and his wife, Marine Lance Cpl. Diana Mankin, and their daughter, Maddie, who is just eight months old, have taken up residency at UCLA Tiverton House while Aaron undergoes surgery. The Katz Family Foundation is paying all non-covered costs, such as travel and housing during treatment.

Other soldiers are being scheduled as part of Operation Mend. UCLA is but one of the world-class hospitals that are lending their extraordinary expertise in plastic reconstructive surgery to our magnificent troops.

Americans must come to a place called “Reality.” We need to understand that the United States has no other choice but to continue fighting a war we did not ask for. The enemy came to our homeland long before 9/11. Radical Islam has been at war with America for decades, yet we were blindsided by their hatred for us due to our leaders’ shortsightedness and subversive influences from within. We are despised because, according to Jihadists, their prophet Mohammad designates non-believers as infidels who are worthy of brutality and death.

We are indeed at war, and it is time to stop second-guessing our president. America took the appropriate stand.

Do not allow the biased media to depress you with their demagoguery. We’ve all heard the same vitriolic rhetoric ad nauseam. The Democrats are invested in retreat and defeat. We who believe in winning the war in Iraq and stabilizing the Middle East feel confident that John McCain can achieve that goal.

Be proud that you’re an American. Our accomplishments in Iraq are honorable and commendable. The president’s first job is to protect our country. George Bush acted wisely. We liberated millions of innocent people. There are no more rape rooms in Iraq. Women and children are safer than ever before. Saddam is dead and al-Qaeda has been driven back by Iraq’s troops and the Iraqi people. Like the land of Israel, the people of Iraq deserve peace.

Our service men and women will come home after the work we have begun is finished. Our troops will begin to stand down when Afghani and Iraqi troops are able to take care of their newly-formed democracies. Until then, it is their duty to take care of our nation via providing safety in the Middle East. If anyone tells you differently, they are either naïve or treasonous. We are living in a dangerous time and cannot afford to let down our guard again.

Most Americans are ill-informed of the potential attacks that have been thwarted by our Homeland Security intelligence gathering — nineteen planned terrorist attacks against America since that infamous day of September 11, 2001. You can thank this administration for keeping America safe. That will not be the case if the Islamic sympathizer Barack Obama becomes president.

If you have any doubts that what our troops have endured for our freedom has been worthwhile, just look into the eyes of Marine Cpl. Aaron P. Mankin and the thousands of others who joined the Armed Services to protect America. We have more than sufficient justification to feel admiration and love for them and our country. One phenomenal reason to puff up your chest with pride is Aaron Mankin.

Related Readings:

‘Operation Mend’ Partnerships Offers New Hope For Wounded Warriors

Reflections on Nursing Leadership- A Noteworthy Feature

National Veteran Foundation Services Sate by State

 

Marie Jon’ is a political/religious-based writer and founder of www.DrawingClose.org — a sister website to RenewAmerica. Marie extends her hand of welcome; visit DrawingClose and receive your free gift of salvation by taking an online Bible study. Join Christians from all over the world by becoming a free member of GO Fellowship. The website is a nondenominational gathering of believers.

Marie brings a refreshing and spirited point of view that is reflected in her writings, as well as genuine and spiritual insights regarding God and his teachings as they pertain to our modern society. Marie is a nurse, a lay student of the Bible, and a patriot. She is an advocate for American troops serving abroad, as well as the Blue and Gold Star Mothers of America and their families. Marie has appeared as a guest with political talk show host Bruce Elliott on WBAL-1090 AM (Saturdays 5AM-9AM EST).