The primary elections have morphed into primary chaos and confusion. Let us count the ways: delegates and super delegates; candidates winning delegates in Colorado without any election, Bernie Sanders winning 7 straight primaries, yet way behind in delegate votes to Hillary Clinton; elections running from January to June. How did it come to this?
The reason is as simple as the primary process is complicated. The current primary system allows for manipulation and deal making by elites of both Parties. (We don't like the candidate that is the leading vote getter, so we'll just play it fast and loose with state delegates).
What we need is a complete overhaul of the primary election process. Put the power back into the hands of the citizens instead of Party bosses.
First, let's stop spreading the primaries over a 6 month period, from January to June. If we can elect a president on one designated polling day, then we can certainly do the same for selecting the candidates to run for that office. It would obviously save time, as well as saving an abundance of money.
Second, let the candidates be chosen by popular vote, rather than by delegates. That change would once again give full power to the citizens of this country.
The current primary system is a remnant of a past age, when travel and the dissemination of information was severely limited and painfully slow. We are now in the 21st century--the era of jets, superhighways, the internet and cable and satellite TV. The day of the backroom political deal and delegate shuffling should go the way of the telegraph and horse and buggy. What should be primary is the will of the people.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Monday, March 14, 2016
GETTING TRUMPED
The Democrats and the Left have been attempting to portray Donald Trump as the second coming of Adolph Hitler. Yet it is highly ironic that at the planned rally for Trump at the UIC Pavillion in Chicago, it was the very same Democrats and Leftists who acted like brown-shirted Nazis by creating chaos and disruption aimed at preventing Trump from speaking at the campaign forum. While it is their right to protest and demonstrate, no group or individual has the right to deny another group or individual their right to lawful free speech and freedom of assembly. Just because you disagree with someone does not give you the right to stop them from expressing themselves. It should be noted that many of the protesters were carrying Bernie Sanders signs, which is fitting considering Sanders is an avowed Socialist and an admirer of Marxist regimes, all famous for political repression.
The issue at hand is not whether you are or are not a supporter of Donald Trump. The issue is whether we will permit political groups to deny people the right to express their political views. By allowing these groups to get away with disrupting Trump's rally, we are setting a dangerous precedent. Violence and intimidation have no place in American politics.
So where are the statements of condemnation from Republican and Democrat leadership? There is a school of thought that says the Washington elites are remaining silent because they fear the anti-establishment rhetoric of Donald Trump, and would prefer to see him stopped and removed from the political debate.
But be forwarned. There is a growing rabble out there that are either ignorant or have no regard for the Constitution of the United States. And if these mobs are allowed to flourish, your favorite candidate may be the next one in the crosshairs.
The issue at hand is not whether you are or are not a supporter of Donald Trump. The issue is whether we will permit political groups to deny people the right to express their political views. By allowing these groups to get away with disrupting Trump's rally, we are setting a dangerous precedent. Violence and intimidation have no place in American politics.
So where are the statements of condemnation from Republican and Democrat leadership? There is a school of thought that says the Washington elites are remaining silent because they fear the anti-establishment rhetoric of Donald Trump, and would prefer to see him stopped and removed from the political debate.
But be forwarned. There is a growing rabble out there that are either ignorant or have no regard for the Constitution of the United States. And if these mobs are allowed to flourish, your favorite candidate may be the next one in the crosshairs.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
THE OSCARS IN BLACK AND WHITE
Accusations are flying from all directions accusing the Academy Awards of being racially biased. It borders on the ridiculous to accuse Hollywood of any anti-black bias. The film industry is famous (and infamous) for being uber liberal in its politics. Think Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, George Clooney, Leonardo DeCaprio, ad nauseum. You couldn't spit out of you car window driving down Wilshire Boulevard without hitting a left leaning liberal.
The Academy honchos say they will implement steps to increase diversity in their committee over the next several years.Sounds like a step in the right direction, but think what that policy implies. The idea of greater diversity on the Academy Awards committee is meant to increase diversity of the nominees in the various award categories. But let's dig deeper into that premise. If increasing racial diversity among the voters results in greater racial diversity in nominees and winners, then that implies blacks will vote for blacks, whites will voter for whites, Hispanics will vote for Hispanics, etc.. Rather than eliminate racial bias in selecting nominees, the Academy plan tacitly admits that the preponderance of voting will be along racial lines. If the sole purpose of the awards is to reward professional excellence, then what does it matter the racial makeup of the voters?
Racial quotas are the tools of despots and bigots. The Oscars should be racially and gender neutral, and the winners chosen on merit.To do otherwise would be the equivalent of choosing nominees by blindly pulling names out of a hat, talent and professional excellence be damned.
The Academy honchos say they will implement steps to increase diversity in their committee over the next several years.Sounds like a step in the right direction, but think what that policy implies. The idea of greater diversity on the Academy Awards committee is meant to increase diversity of the nominees in the various award categories. But let's dig deeper into that premise. If increasing racial diversity among the voters results in greater racial diversity in nominees and winners, then that implies blacks will vote for blacks, whites will voter for whites, Hispanics will vote for Hispanics, etc.. Rather than eliminate racial bias in selecting nominees, the Academy plan tacitly admits that the preponderance of voting will be along racial lines. If the sole purpose of the awards is to reward professional excellence, then what does it matter the racial makeup of the voters?
Racial quotas are the tools of despots and bigots. The Oscars should be racially and gender neutral, and the winners chosen on merit.To do otherwise would be the equivalent of choosing nominees by blindly pulling names out of a hat, talent and professional excellence be damned.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
DO LIVES MATTER? OR NOT?
You've seen them on TV, in the papers, online: Black Lives Matter demonstrators marching in the streets, carrying signs, shouting slogans, tying up traffic, blocking business establishments. They have legitimate grievances--white police officers allegedly shooting black citizens without justification. But given the circumstances, a person must ask if these demonstrators are sincerely taking to the streets to end injustice, or simply to push political and social agendas.
Contrary to what black leaders would have you believe, police shootings in Chicago are not on the rise. Look at the numbers. In 2014 there were 37 police shooting, and 16 people killed. In 2015 that number dropped to 26 police shooting, and 8 people killed. Rather than deteriorating, the situation regarding police shootings is actually markedly improving.
In total, 399 African Americans were homicide victims in 2015 in Chicago. Approximately 80% of those were murdered by other blacks. Too many of them were innocent children, and even infants. Yet can you recall a single demonstration by hundreds of Black Lives Matter supporters marching through black communities to protest these shootings? Apparently black lives matter only when they are killed by white cops. If they are killed by fellow blacks, then their lives really didn't matter as much. Can there be a more glaring example of hypocrisy?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics point out that nationwide, 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. In Chicago, shootings are again on the rise. The numbers are frightening. A person is shot every 2 hours and 55 minutes, and there is a murder every 17 hours and 34 minutes. Thank a half century of Democrat control of the city for this bloodshed.
And, oh, yes...the next time you head into Chicago, wear your flack jacket.
Contrary to what black leaders would have you believe, police shootings in Chicago are not on the rise. Look at the numbers. In 2014 there were 37 police shooting, and 16 people killed. In 2015 that number dropped to 26 police shooting, and 8 people killed. Rather than deteriorating, the situation regarding police shootings is actually markedly improving.
In total, 399 African Americans were homicide victims in 2015 in Chicago. Approximately 80% of those were murdered by other blacks. Too many of them were innocent children, and even infants. Yet can you recall a single demonstration by hundreds of Black Lives Matter supporters marching through black communities to protest these shootings? Apparently black lives matter only when they are killed by white cops. If they are killed by fellow blacks, then their lives really didn't matter as much. Can there be a more glaring example of hypocrisy?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics point out that nationwide, 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. In Chicago, shootings are again on the rise. The numbers are frightening. A person is shot every 2 hours and 55 minutes, and there is a murder every 17 hours and 34 minutes. Thank a half century of Democrat control of the city for this bloodshed.
And, oh, yes...the next time you head into Chicago, wear your flack jacket.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
THE CHANGING FACE OF PLANET EARTH
The face of the earth is changing. No, not the geography. The topography remains the same. The change I'm referring to is the cultural change. A seismic shift is occurring in the ethnic and racial populations of this planet unlike any previously seen.
For ions Europe has been a sea dotted with ethnic islands. England was for the English, France for the French, Sweden for the Swedes, etc.. Now migrants are arriving from the Middle East, Africa and Asia at the rate of six thousand a day. There are currently 44 million Muslims living in Europe, and that number is expected to double by 2050. Germany expects 800 thousand migrants to pour into their country by the end of 2015. For the first time in history, Brits are a minority in London. In the past ten years, over one millions Brits have emigrated from England.
Back in the USA it has been estimated that we have at least 11 million illegal immigrants residing within our borders, the overwhelming majority of those being Hispanic. Putting this demographic shift into perspective, when JFK was sworn in as President in January of 1961, the country was 80% Caucasian. Today that number is 65%, and it is predicted that by the middle of this century, Caucasians will be a minority at 45%.
What this changing population landscape means to the world is yet to be determined. But one thing is certain. The world our grandchildren will inhabit in their senior years will be radically different from the one they were born into.
Take a good look around. We are witnessing the end of one era, and the beginning of a new one.
For ions Europe has been a sea dotted with ethnic islands. England was for the English, France for the French, Sweden for the Swedes, etc.. Now migrants are arriving from the Middle East, Africa and Asia at the rate of six thousand a day. There are currently 44 million Muslims living in Europe, and that number is expected to double by 2050. Germany expects 800 thousand migrants to pour into their country by the end of 2015. For the first time in history, Brits are a minority in London. In the past ten years, over one millions Brits have emigrated from England.
Back in the USA it has been estimated that we have at least 11 million illegal immigrants residing within our borders, the overwhelming majority of those being Hispanic. Putting this demographic shift into perspective, when JFK was sworn in as President in January of 1961, the country was 80% Caucasian. Today that number is 65%, and it is predicted that by the middle of this century, Caucasians will be a minority at 45%.
What this changing population landscape means to the world is yet to be determined. But one thing is certain. The world our grandchildren will inhabit in their senior years will be radically different from the one they were born into.
Take a good look around. We are witnessing the end of one era, and the beginning of a new one.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
MOTIVE FOR MASS MURDER?
There has yet been one more mass shooting. This time it happened at Umpqua Community College in Douglas County, Oregon. At latest count, there were 13 dead and 20 wounded.
This latest shooting spree has one major factor in common with other mass shooting, such as the ones in Columbine and Aurora Colorado. What is the common denominator? The killings took place in a rural community or suburb. This begs the question: Why do these shooting take place in relatively quiet and sparsely populated areas? Why don't these rampages occur in major cities beset with guns, gangs and homicides? Places like Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA, etc.? Just this past weekend, 50 people were shot in separate incidents in Chicago. So why has no major city experienced a mass killing of a dozen people or more?
Here is one possible explanation. Unlike rural communities, violence is a daily fact of life in the inner city. Guns are plentiful, and law enforcement estimates there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone, which account for 80% of the shootings. There is little restraint against violence in the inner city; it is an accepted way to settle disputes and grudges between groups and individuals. In contrast to rural areas and small towns, where gun violence is a rarity, and violent behavior of any kind is discouraged, the inner city's availability of weapons and support of gang afffiliations provides a ready outlet for anger and violent impulses, which in turn, decreases the possibility of emotional explosions leading to mass murder. It is, in effect, a type of safety valve that does not permit anger to build because of the opportunties to release it.
This isn't to say that gang street violence is a positive antidote for the mass shootings in Oregon, Colorado, etc., but it is a theory that has yet to be invalidated.
This latest shooting spree has one major factor in common with other mass shooting, such as the ones in Columbine and Aurora Colorado. What is the common denominator? The killings took place in a rural community or suburb. This begs the question: Why do these shooting take place in relatively quiet and sparsely populated areas? Why don't these rampages occur in major cities beset with guns, gangs and homicides? Places like Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA, etc.? Just this past weekend, 50 people were shot in separate incidents in Chicago. So why has no major city experienced a mass killing of a dozen people or more?
Here is one possible explanation. Unlike rural communities, violence is a daily fact of life in the inner city. Guns are plentiful, and law enforcement estimates there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone, which account for 80% of the shootings. There is little restraint against violence in the inner city; it is an accepted way to settle disputes and grudges between groups and individuals. In contrast to rural areas and small towns, where gun violence is a rarity, and violent behavior of any kind is discouraged, the inner city's availability of weapons and support of gang afffiliations provides a ready outlet for anger and violent impulses, which in turn, decreases the possibility of emotional explosions leading to mass murder. It is, in effect, a type of safety valve that does not permit anger to build because of the opportunties to release it.
This isn't to say that gang street violence is a positive antidote for the mass shootings in Oregon, Colorado, etc., but it is a theory that has yet to be invalidated.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
GOVERNMENT APPROVED MARRIAGE
Kim Davis, county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple, and as a result, she was thrown in jail for contempt of court. That action ignited a firestorm of protests around the country by people claiming Ms. Davis is being persecuted for exercising her religious beliefs. Rights have been violated, but they weren't those of Ms. Davis.
Her claim is that gay marriage is in opposition to her religious beliefs, and therefore, she refused to issue the marriage licenses on moral grounds.But there is a far more fundimental issue in question. The government, be it federal, state or local, has no right to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. Such matters are way beyond the purview of government in a free society. It was mere decades ago that in a certain number of states, whites and blacks were not permitted to marry one another. Giving bureaucrats the power to decide which adults can marry is certainly heading down a slippery slope. Setting such a precedent, future government leaders could decide that Jews can't marry Catholics, or Asians can't marry Caucasians, or Italians can't marry Swedes.
The only actions that should be deemed unlawful are those that violate the individual rights of others.In the case of gay marriage, whose rights are being violated? You may be offended, but none of your rights have been violated.
And while there is no provision in our Constitution, this country was built on the priciple of seperation of church and state. You are free to practice your religion, but you can make no laws forcing your religious beliefs on others. Some Christians would debate this point, especially as it pertains to gay marriage. This is, at best, a hypocritical position.What would be the reaction of Christians be if a female county clerk dressed in burka refused to uphold a law because she said it violated Islamic teachings? My guess is there would be utter outrage at such an action, and justifiably so.
If gay marriage laws violated Kim Davis' religious beliefs, then she should have recused herself from the situation rather than deny the rights of two Americans.
Let us ask ourselves two question: Do we really want a government that has the power to tell us who we can and cannot marry? And how does two gays marrying interfere with your Constitutional rights?
Her claim is that gay marriage is in opposition to her religious beliefs, and therefore, she refused to issue the marriage licenses on moral grounds.But there is a far more fundimental issue in question. The government, be it federal, state or local, has no right to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. Such matters are way beyond the purview of government in a free society. It was mere decades ago that in a certain number of states, whites and blacks were not permitted to marry one another. Giving bureaucrats the power to decide which adults can marry is certainly heading down a slippery slope. Setting such a precedent, future government leaders could decide that Jews can't marry Catholics, or Asians can't marry Caucasians, or Italians can't marry Swedes.
The only actions that should be deemed unlawful are those that violate the individual rights of others.In the case of gay marriage, whose rights are being violated? You may be offended, but none of your rights have been violated.
And while there is no provision in our Constitution, this country was built on the priciple of seperation of church and state. You are free to practice your religion, but you can make no laws forcing your religious beliefs on others. Some Christians would debate this point, especially as it pertains to gay marriage. This is, at best, a hypocritical position.What would be the reaction of Christians be if a female county clerk dressed in burka refused to uphold a law because she said it violated Islamic teachings? My guess is there would be utter outrage at such an action, and justifiably so.
If gay marriage laws violated Kim Davis' religious beliefs, then she should have recused herself from the situation rather than deny the rights of two Americans.
Let us ask ourselves two question: Do we really want a government that has the power to tell us who we can and cannot marry? And how does two gays marrying interfere with your Constitutional rights?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)