Okay in the advent of having 8 or 9 candidates again I thought of a way we could start taking the splits into account without the worst possible individual being able to slip by.

In the advent of only 2 primary candidates we do this by a vote for either candidate as usual.

If we have 3 or 4 candidates in the primary we cast our vote by favorability.

Most Preferred candidate which one would place a 1 by their name, would get vote value of n where n = the total number of candidates.

2nd choice would get n – 1 vote value where n = total number of candidates.

3rd choice would get either a 1 or 0 vote value depending on whether there were 4 candidates or 3 candidates.

When there are 6 candidates or more we start giving the bottom 2 candidate a 0 vote value in our rating system.

While the one candidate that most people don’t like may pick up a fair total, the vote split wouldn’t allow that candidate to sneak by.

So if someone chose:

Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Romney

Someone else chose

Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Perry

Someone else chose:

Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Romney

and someone else chose

Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Romney

That would mean Gingrich has a vote value of 11, Cain has a vote value of 11, Perry has a vote value of 6, and Romney has a vote value of 4.

Under the old method we would be looking at a 4 way split, but the new way would indicate that this looks more like a neck and neck race between Gingrich and Cain, with Perry trailing, and Romney is dead last.

I think this would be a good way for us to narrow the field to the best candidates, rather than let the media just have it so we have the worst candidate get the nomination cause we can’t get behind a good candidate cause we are split so many different ways it’s not funny.

Okay I this may be a little out of order in reference to Article I, but the answer as to why replacing Boehner won’t do anything except shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot.  While section 7 shows that bills are supposed to start in the House, it really doesn’t give any consequences for the Senate failing to go on record one way or the other concerning said bills.  While both Houses must keep records of everything, if Harry Reid doesn’t let any piece of legislation from the House up for discussion, nobody in the Senate goes on record.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

I understand everyone’s frustration, however there isn’t much a Speaker of the House can do to bypass Harry Reid’s roadblock as people can see in Article I, Section 5.  I underlined the part of the text that shows the only option Speaker Boehner seems to have.

Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The one thing I do see a potential for Boehner to try is force the Senate to stay in session until they actually do their job, however doing that would probably end up causing a mutiny in the House because House Republicans will be upset that they are unable to go home and see their families when they already did their jobs and can’t do anything until the Senate decides to do its job.

So if people think using Article I; Section 5 is worth a shot maybe we should all email and/or snail mail Speaker Boehner demanding he use Article I; Section 5 around the Christmas holidays and then again on their summer break.  Cause other than that the Speaker of the House really has no authority over the United States Senate.

Other than that there isn’t much Boehner or anyone else can really do when we have a Senate Majority Leader and a President willing to hold the American people hostage (particularly our military servicemen and women) in order to get their way.  Well maybe there is if we had a news media that would actually report the news; however we have a Soviet Style Propaganda machine instead of an actual news media (Fox News being about the only exception from a television standpoint), so until the American people wake up and realize how the mainstream media is lieing to them, Obama and Reid can continue to get away with holding our servicemen and women hostage, of holding seniors’ social security hostage, etc. cause Obama and Reid know the Republicans are the ones that will get hit with the blame.

To sum this up Boehner is getting hit with the following choices either capitulate and tick off the base (and probably hurt the country in the process); or hold the line in which case the country suffers (particularly our military servicemen and women) while Harry Reid and Obama sit back and let their media lapdogs smear Republicans as being the problem because they refuse to work with the Democrats.  This will continue to happen regardless of whom our Speaker of the House is, whether it continues to be Boehner, or is given to Paul Ryan, or even Newt Gingrich; it really doesn’t matter cause the problem is in the Senate amd the executive branch, not the House of Representatives.

Getting back to the issue at hand (Why McConnell should be replaced):

As I pointed out in the text above John Boehner has no ability to really force the issue in the Senate as mentioned in Article I, Section 5; but Mitch McConnell, as Senate Minority Leader might actually have the ability to force the issue and at least get people on record concerning legislation.

There is a lot of legislation that has passed the House (including at least 2 budgets), that has never been allowed to even be up for discussion due to Harry Reid, nobody has to go on record concerning the bills because they are never brought up.  As a Senator, Mitch McConnell has the ability to at least try to force the issue, and as Senate Minority Learder it is harder for read to get away with attempting to silence him, if he chose to actually have a backbone.

I think that sums up the situation, we are trying to unseat the wrong person at the moment; instead of focusing on Boehner whom really has no say on what the Senate does so there is no way of telling whether or not he’s just caving, or if he’s being undercut by McConnell whom should be standing up to Reid and doesn’t seem to be doing so.  We do know McConnell is caving to the Democrats left and right because he is the Senate Minority Leader and actually does have some say in the operations of the Senate.

As everyone well knows Obama’s political experience comes from Chicago, they are masters of demonizing people.

1. Most of the Republican voters let themselves get manipulated in the primary, so the Democrats got the candidate they wanted to run against.

Santorum: Let’s face it, most of the candidates could have done a better job, even if abortion was made into an issue.  The Democrats could easily have crossed the line attacking Santorum over his pro-life stance, due to his daughter, if they pushed things too far the Democrats would have alienated a lot of women.  I don’t think he was the best candidate of the bunch, however his vulnerability was his religious beliefs and they would attempt to demonize him.  The problem for the Democrats there was it could easily backfire and I suspect they knew it.

Bachmann: She’s pro-life, however she’s also a foster-mom, not to mention the fact she is a woman.  The Democrats ran the risk of looking like misogynists if she was the nominee, and given her background of being a foster mom, it made attacking her on the basis of pro-life views incredibly dangerous.

Herman Cain: I suspect he would have been a very good candidate if he hadn’t been side swiped like that, I still suspect the “sex scandel” was a smear campaign.  He would have taken the race card off the table, and while he was wealthy, he didn’t start out that way.  So there was the added bonus of class warfare wouldn’t be all that effective.

Newt Gingrich: I think that he would have been able to beat Obama, yes he had baggage, but quite a bit of the baggage could actually be considered traps.  Gingrich would have taken the battle to Obama, the class warfare would be off the table because he made a lot of his money writing books, not from something like Bain Capital.  His “ethics violation” was something that stood a very good chance of hurting the Democrats instead of him (considering it was due to the fact he was teaching a college course, and the violation was due to a lawyer screwing up paperwork), compare that the insider trading scandals where no one got punished, and suddenly Newt looks like a reformer that got smeared by a bunch of corrupt politicians.

Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson were by far weaker than Romney.

Anyways the biggest issues for Romney:

1. Bain Capital, good or bad take your pick Obama specialized in class warfare; it was a glaring vulnerability that none of our other candidates had.

2. Romney’s wealth, again the class warfare since he inheritted his wealth.

3. Romney came off as someone whom didn’t understand people.

4. Romney wasn’t a risk taker, he really didn’t take all that many risks.

5. Romney was more aggressive in the primaries than he was towards Obama, which relates to 6.

6. Romney’s personal negatives, there were quite a few from the primary after he demonized his opponents instead of building himself up.  Then he turned around and played nice towards Obama.

Then we have the media’s dishonest behavior, a glaring example is their coverup of Benghazi.  Fact of the matter is the media was essentially Obama’s 1000 press secretaries.  We needed someone that could not only take on Obama, but also take on the mainstream media.

We needed someone that would publicly take Obama to task over his dishonest and misleading advertisements, Romney didn’t.  We needed someone whom would challenge Obama over Benghazi, Romney tentatively went at it and was torpedoed by Candy Crowley whom was trying to cover for Obama and Romney didn’t know enough to challenge it.  If our candidate had been Speaker Gingrich, then I think Candy Crowley would have looked like an idiot, cause he would have immediately pivoted by asking, “Then why the hell was his administration ranting about a video if he knew it was a terrorist attack?!?!”

Fact of the matter is that Obama won by distraction, division, “free stuff,” the phony “war on women.”  Romney didn’t challenge Obama on anything, we needed a candidate that would call Obama out on things and not let Obama get pass after pass by the media.

The reason why this election was so close is because of how bad Obama’s record is, Romney was a lousy candidate, something I said back in the primaries, I voted for Romney hoping that I would be wrong but looks like I was right.  Well folks, “I told you so.”

Blaming Conservatives is incredibly stupid, we can have differences of opinions on social issues folks, the trick is that we have to be willing to sit down and be willing to have a mature conversation on the issue.  Throwing Social Conservatives under the bus is exactly what the Democrats want the Republicans to do, they want the GOP to split and a 3rd party form.  The Democrats know that if we form a 3rd party, they will win every election from here on out.

We need to get people educated about what is going on, we need to be willing to talk to other people even if it is outside of our comfort zones.

The one thing I do fear is this may be too late, and our country may not be here when 2016 rolls around.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A torrential downpour that struck Charlotte  Saturday  afternoon damaged the Mount Rushmore-style sand sculpture bust  of President  Obama — an ominous beginning to what many fear is a plagued  convention.

Workers were trying Saturday afternoon to reform the base of the  sculpture,  built from sand brought in from Myrtle Beach, S.C., pounding  and smoothing out  the sand that had washed off the facade of the waist-up rendering of the chief  executive.

Read more: Rains wash away Mount Obama in Charlotte, N.C. – Washington Timeshttp://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/1/rains-wash-away-mount-obama/#ixzz25GE3MjPk

I thought people would find this amusing, I seriously believe that the American people wouldn’t be amused by this sculpture, and it would drive more people into the Republican camp.

1. It wouldn’t surprise me if the sculpture was taxpayer funded.

2. It is the kind is idiocy we see from a self-absorbed dictator.

3. Considering the economic state of the country, this kind of waste is insulting to the American people.

This is hopefully a good wake up call to Democrats that still have a sense of rationality left, that the DNC has gone off the deep end.  I mean what are the Democrats going to do next pledge of allegience to Obama?  Wait didn’t they already do that, as well as getting little kids sing songs to praise the glory of Obama?

Folks, I may not like Romney (I don’t think he’s an entirely bad guy anymore, but there are still some things I don’t like), I’ve made no secret about it either, but I don’t think Romney is so full of himself that he’d have monuments churned out like a 2nd rate Dictator.

Quite frankly I’m surprised Romney isn’t beating Obama by 20 pts right now.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu got into a diplomatic shouting match  with US Ambassador Dan Shapiro over US President Barack Obama’s handling of Iran’s nuclear program, saying “time has run out” for diplomacy, Yediot Aharonot cited a source as saying on Friday.

According to the report, which The Jerusalem Post could not independently verify, the showdown took place as Netanyahu met with Shapiro and Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who visited Israel earlier in the week. –http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=283353&R=R1

Apparently Prime Minister Netanyahu is getting seriously frustrated with the Obama White House’s inaction concerning Iran’s Nuclear Program and for good reason, if you consider the size of Israel and the fact it wouldn’t take that many nuclear weapons to cause another Holocaust, I think their reaction is entirely justified.

I think Israel is probably going to have to go it alone, I don’t believe that they can trust the United States to honor its commitment as an ally to the State of Israel under this current administration.  Considering Obama being okay with the Muslim Brotherhood seizing power in Egypt, his indifference towards the people in Iran trying to stand up to a brutal regime, etc., I think Israelis should be very worried if Obama gets another 4 years in office.

In any case, Iran cannot be allowed to gain Nuclear Weapons, if Obama is not voted out of Office in November, it is highly likely that Iran will get Nuclear Weapons, and will likely use them on Israel.

As everyone here realizes, nominees often get a significant boost after their party’s convention.  People watched the 08 convention because nobody knew who McCain picked as his running mate until the Convention.  Bush didn’t announce his running mate until the Convention back in 2000 either.   It is a way to get people to watch the convention, a suspense builder as it were.

Regardless of what people say about McCain’s pick for VP, I think that he made a brilliant choice, but we lost in 08 due to McCain’s campaign team being a bunch of morons.

I understand one of the possible reasons that he didn’t pick Rubio (specifically the United States Senate seat).  Granted Ryan has an important position in the House of Representatives, but we have a pretty large majority in the House.

I am sincerely glad he didn’t pick Christie whom is rather liberal on social issues, also glad Pawlenty wasn’t picked (whom is a total flop), etc.  He picked about the only person in Washington currently that can do basic math, Ryan will pulverise Biden in a debate.

My problem is that Romney announced his choice way too early.

Part 1:

Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.  — http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure

Apparently the Democrats are trying to slip some gun control measures into the the latest cybersecurity bill.  All and all this isn’t surprising, since they were pushing for more gun laws when people were getting slaughtered in Mexico by guns provided by our DoJ.

Whether or not people agree with me, I think the main reason Democrats are pushing for more gun laws and potentially want to do away with the 2nd Amendment is because they are afraid of the American People.  I don’t think this is genuine concern for our safety, I mean let’s face it, there have been quite a few Democrats in recent memory that have held up countries like China or other Dictatorships/countries that oppress their people as shining examples that we should learn from.

Our founding fathers added the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for a reason, it was to enable the American people to be able to protect themselves from a tyranical government.  It is the most important Amendment in the Constitution, even more important than the 1st Amendment, because it gives all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights teeth.

Part 2:

To slightly change the subject, to something that has more to do with the Obama Administration and the DoJ.  I don’t think Democrats in Congress were aware of Fast & Furious, cause let’s face it many people in Congress seem to have a problem keeping their mouths shut on anything (huge chance for political opportunism as well which would provide ample motive for them to leak the information).

First we had Fast & Furious, while people may say that it was nothing but incompetitence, it is my belief that it was a deliberate attempt to manufacture a crisis in order to institute an outcry for more gun control laws and even get public support for that Arms treaty that Obama is trying to ram through, which would shred the Constitution.

Fortunately, the public found out where the guns were really coming from in the escalating violence.

The reason I have suspicions of what happened in Aurora, Colorado stems from Fast & Furious, while people may argue that it is simple paranoia, they forget that this administration has already pulled a stunt like what happened in Aurora, only on a much larger scale.  I haven’t looked up the total estimated bodycount from Fast & Furious (which we know includes 2 US border agents and who knows how many other American citizens), but it certainly makes what happened in Aurora look miniscule.  I’m not belittling the tragedy of what happened in Aurora, all I’m saying is that we all should have good reason to be suspicious, and that’s what’s so scary.

Now it’s entirely possible that he got everything online, including the instructions on how to build those explosives, I’d be happy to be proven wrong on my suspicions concerning the current DoJ and the current administration.  What scares me, is that the current Department of Justice’s behavior under Eric Holder can’t be chalked up as paranoia if anyone wants to be honest with themselves, because they already have a track record of pulling stunts like this.

Then we have the fact Obama is trying to use Executive Privilege to stonewall Rep. Issa’s investigation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/executive-privilege-claim-opens-new-questions-for-lawmakers-probing-fast-and/

In summary, maybe Obama’s DoJ is involved in what happened in Aurora, maybe not.  The scary thing is that due to the Department of Justice’s track record while under the leadership of Eric Holder, there are perfectly reasonable grounds to suspect the worst, because this DoJ has already pulled something like what happened in Aurora Colorado, but on a much larger scale.

The fact of the matter is to sum up what I’m saying is a simple question:

Do you believe that the Department of Justice would (not simply could, cause they would obviously have the means, this is about whether or not you believe they are so corrupt that they would do something like that) potentially put guns in the hands of violent criminals to deliberately create a manufactured crisis? 

I would don’t know about anyone else, but I’d have to answer yes, because they already have been caught at it once.  That’s what makes this so scary, because this is the first time I felt the DoJ would do anything like what happened in Fast & Furious.  I wouldn’t have believed anything like this would have happened during Reagan’s administration, Bush sr.’s, Bush Jr.’s, heck I just thought Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno was a blundering idiot for the most part.  Yes, I believe the Clinton DoJ had some corruption, but nothing at the level we’ve seen with the Obama DoJ, and I would be skeptical Clinton would what tolerated his DoJ pulling a stunt like Fast & Furious.

Btw, if people would like me to give more examples of Department of Justice corruption under Holder, one can simply bring up the New Black Panthers and that’s just for starters.

As someone that usually thinks conspiracy theorists are nuts, it’s kinda scary when the Conspiracy theorists start making sense.

1. Allow competition across state lines.

2. Deal with pre-existing conditions so that is covered (I have an idea for this which I will mention later in this entry), and can’t simply be dropped because you have been diagnosed with an illness.

3. Lawsuit reform (I’ll let others argue how this should be handled)

4. Have no mandate.

5. Let small businesses get together and hire someone to represent them all to get the group an insurance policy for their employees as though they were a larger corporation.

6. Does not give any new guidelines as to what insurers have to or don’t have to cover, any guidelines prior to Obamacare’s enactment would be a good basis, other than that, it is a matter for when someone/or a group in the case of a business buys insurance.

The reason why the individual mandate was in Obamacare had to do with people with pre-existing conditions that just got diagnosed and decided to get insurance at that point.  There is a relatively easy way to deal with this without having an individual mandate:

If someone buys health insurance, if they aren’t simply changing insurers (examples of this exception: let’s say a child is going of their parents’ insurance onto their own insurance plan, or someone changing jobs is going from one insurer to another), the Insurance company does not have to pay for any healthcare expenses from any pre-existing condition that was diagnosed prior to buying the policy.

Simply put, if you didn’t have insurance to begin with and you get let’s say a diagnosis of cancer, you can’t simply get health insurance and expect the company to pay for it, you’re responsible for the costs of treatment for that 5 year window associated with that pre-existing condition.

That makes it so if people want to go without insurance, they’re perfectly able to do so, however they can’t just go get insurance when they get a health issue and then expect the insurer to deal with the costs.

There is no mandate, and it keeps insurers out of the situation where they get hit with people only getting insurance when they get diagnosed with a serious health issue which would bankrupt them.

I think this skeletal framework would be lightyears better than Obamacare, Obamatax, or whatever else you want to call that idiotic waste of paper.

Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them,  along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide  if they encounter an “active shooter.”

It’s one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman  starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local  2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement  professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS  come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial. — http://nation.foxnews.com/homeland-security-policy-border-control-agents/2012/06/30/homeland-security-instructs-armed-border-patrol-agents-run-away-and-hide-gunmen

This isn’t violence in the office we’re talking about, this is violence on our border, that means if anyone starts shooting at them they’re supposed to run away.

Fast & Furious, Solyndra, Obamacare, and now this and that’s just to name a few.

I think if this happened under a Republican President, there would be calls for impeachment.

I think this isn’t mere incompetitence, I think this stuff is all deliberate in order to hurt this country as much as they can, every decision that they make is what hurts this country as much as possible, guesses if this was incompetitence we would have him making good decisions in some areas completely on accident.  This isn’t incompetitence in my view, this is deliberate.

Would post more but I think the article speaks for itself.

Anyways a link to the full story:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/29/border-patrol-union-claims-homeland-security-safety-course-promotes/

While Republicans gasped as Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme  Court’s liberal wing in upholding the federal health care overhaul, clues in the  dissent suggest the conservative jurist may have originally sided against the  law.

Perhaps the country will never know, but legal experts have seized on a  string of passages in the dissent that indicate their opinion was originally  written as the majority ruling — one that would have struck down the law in its  entirety.

Theories abound as to what clues the dissent offers. Did the minority  justices simply set out to write their opinion with the confidence of a  majority, without ever having five justices on board? Or did Roberts flip,  perhaps under pressure to let stand an historic piece of legislation and/or  battle the perception of the high court as partisan?

“I suspect … the chief switched very late in the game,” constitutional  lawyer David Rivkin told FoxNews.com.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/did-roberts-flip-clues-in-dissent-suggest-court-was-initially-set-to-strike/#ixzz1zCcZbMih

I know people don’t like this issue raised, but as Rush Limbaugh pointed out today, Justice Roberts actually rewrote Obamacare in order to save it from being declared unconstitutional (and it is still unconstitutional as heck).

If what I suspect is correct, that in fact Roberts did change his position at the last minute, the question is why…  Given this White House’s willingness to use outright intimidation to try to silence opposition, especially since if you will recall they have used intimidation tactics on business owners, among other people already, it isn’t that much of a stretch to think that something may have happened.  The only alternative is that Roberts caved because the leftist media would throw a tantrum.

People can also check out HotAir.com’s article: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/obamacare-was-the-conservative-dissent-on-the-mandate-originally-a-majority-opinion/

While this isn’t the only challenge directed against Obamacare, I think this election is the most important one in our lifetimes.  Furthermore, I think if we get Obamacare repealed (which even if the Republicans win, unless they demonstrate some backbone it won’t happen), we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment so nothing like this can ever happen again.

Also people here need to get it through there heads that this wasn’t a victory for us, I just hope enough people get the wake up call that we can stop this thing in November, otherwise this country is toast.