In the everpresent fiasco of bureaucracy, it is hard not to find myself pondering the idiocy within. No matter the level of bureaucracy, the idiot always seems to rise to the top. It matters not the education, or the lack thereof.
The truth be told, we are all part of the problem. We, the electors, are the namely culprit of such demise. We tend to play the blame game as they do, and even better. Everytime one of these politicians prove their idiocy, we cry wolf. Yet, the incumbent wins again.
The general election is around the corner, yet the ignorance of the electorate has already shown its usual lack of knowledge. Most of what the politicians campaign on is public information, and can be verified. The vetting of each and every candidate is an important factor in the justification of our republic. Most of what they speak will not be verified, and most will just comply with the status quo of this so-called democracy.
For all of this, I will simply quote on Barack Obama. As he has said, or meant several times,"...don't have all the facts, and they acted stupidly...". This just being a rough quote on the idea that most do not have the facts and will ineptly approach the ballot with the same ignorance of not having all the facts.
When the incumbent speaks, it is public record. The next time your representative speaks, votes, or merely campaigns it is "Guess What"? The answer is PUBLIC RECORD. If they voted, it is recorded. If they spoke it is recorded. The same can be said for any matter of public trust.
The next time you go to the polls, let it not be taken without cause of knowledge. Let it be the arm of this knowledge that will set the standard for the representative body.
The candidate should be considered as a potential employee applicant and yourself as the employer. Treat the candidate as would this applicant. Verify is the keyword. Verify the identification, verify the aptitude, and lastly verify the references. If they pass this scrutiny then they are the candidate for you. If not, well that is fairly self-explanatory.
To end this banter, I will render a quote by Gore Vidal. "As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
No Party Line Here...
Here it is, 2012! An important year for this Grand Republic. Or so we would think!
This election cycle will be a deciding factor in our future as a free society. As always we are one election away from being succumbed by the socialist agenda. In general, the citizenry will tend to follow the liberal-left media instead of doing the research.
An example of such can be seen in the everyday exercise, or lack thereof in our very own inherent rights to liberty and freedom. I cannot tell you how many times when a cycle of election is upon us, that I do not hear this horrid phrase, "Why should I vote for one crook over another?"
I always have to counter that with my opinionated views. The very problem with todays society is the lack of interest in the keeping intact, our inherent freedom to make a difference. With just one question, or perhaps a mere vote can change the outlook on such liberty. There have been many elections for the Presidency that have been decided by such a close vote.
In the election of 1800 the vote was so close it had to be decided by the House of Representatives. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were close enough in popular and electoral vote that the decision forced to the floor of the House. In those days the President and Vice-President were decided by the first and second placing in the election. As we now know, Jefferson became President, As for Burr, he was elected to the Vice-Presidency and would later taint his own and political future as well as that of the nation.
There were many more such close elctions. The elections of 1844, 1848, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1916, 1960, 2000, and 2004. We can all remember the latest of these as being Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry.
In my research, the closest election without going to a House vote was 1960. Kennedy (D) defeated Nixon (R) by and Electoral vote of 84 while only carrying a slight margin of .2% popular vote. Just think about the repercussion of what would have happened if a few more voters would have attributed the polls. The same could have been said for the most recent Bush election fiascoes.
Now to the matter at hand. The vote is more than just a selection. It is a right, although the "duopoly" might state differently as it being a privelege. Through our founding documents we have been tendered an inherent duty and responsibility for this right of a vote.
We the people are granted the right of the one true authority by both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Not to mention the Bill of Rights gives us a voice towards such in the freedom of speech and the redress of greivance. Although there are many who will deny this, the only answer that should be given in redress to such is "...read the Constitution".
The First Amendment gives heed to the citizen. In its given authority, We the people offer, through election, representative body to assert the effect of the citizens' voice. It is our duty and responsibility to assure that these duties are performed with and in defense of the Constitution and all that it represents. The way to do that is the election.
Our vote does count. Not as one, but as a whole. Your opinion is and should be your voting precognition. Basically meaning, when in doubt in who or what to vote for, it is best to go with the one that represents you personally. In presentation of such statement I will use myself as an example in how I use my opinion in deciding my casting. When I look at the candidate or proposition the first thing I look at is how the person is dressed. An example, if the candidate is saying they understand my needs and wants, yet this candidate is wearing a suit more expensive than my whole wardrobe. I have to ponder can this person really understand me, and how can they represent me.
This is just a last resort measure. The first and foremost would be to research the issues and decide how close the issues and the candidate resemble my own. When in doubt about such a decision I will most assumingly vote out the incumbent. This reasoning being my own version of term limitation.
Finally, I will get to my final banter on the subject matter. There is a genuine misunderstanding of the Primary and Caucus setup. These are matters of private party convention. Meaning, if you are not affiliated with that party then do not get involved. Now, there are some that will beckon the rights of open primary. There is no such thing as an open primary. If it is open it is an election, and therefore a later election is not needed. The primary ballot is private party business, and if you are not affiliated then stay out of it. This is clearly meant for the liberal-left media in their hawking the nomination outcome.
As for myself, I am rendering a no-show as a party voter at the primary. I will request a ballot for non-party and question matters.
This is One Man's Opinion, and as the First Amendment is still intact let this be my word on the matter.
This election cycle will be a deciding factor in our future as a free society. As always we are one election away from being succumbed by the socialist agenda. In general, the citizenry will tend to follow the liberal-left media instead of doing the research.
An example of such can be seen in the everyday exercise, or lack thereof in our very own inherent rights to liberty and freedom. I cannot tell you how many times when a cycle of election is upon us, that I do not hear this horrid phrase, "Why should I vote for one crook over another?"
I always have to counter that with my opinionated views. The very problem with todays society is the lack of interest in the keeping intact, our inherent freedom to make a difference. With just one question, or perhaps a mere vote can change the outlook on such liberty. There have been many elections for the Presidency that have been decided by such a close vote.
In the election of 1800 the vote was so close it had to be decided by the House of Representatives. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were close enough in popular and electoral vote that the decision forced to the floor of the House. In those days the President and Vice-President were decided by the first and second placing in the election. As we now know, Jefferson became President, As for Burr, he was elected to the Vice-Presidency and would later taint his own and political future as well as that of the nation.
There were many more such close elctions. The elections of 1844, 1848, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1916, 1960, 2000, and 2004. We can all remember the latest of these as being Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry.
In my research, the closest election without going to a House vote was 1960. Kennedy (D) defeated Nixon (R) by and Electoral vote of 84 while only carrying a slight margin of .2% popular vote. Just think about the repercussion of what would have happened if a few more voters would have attributed the polls. The same could have been said for the most recent Bush election fiascoes.
Now to the matter at hand. The vote is more than just a selection. It is a right, although the "duopoly" might state differently as it being a privelege. Through our founding documents we have been tendered an inherent duty and responsibility for this right of a vote.
We the people are granted the right of the one true authority by both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Not to mention the Bill of Rights gives us a voice towards such in the freedom of speech and the redress of greivance. Although there are many who will deny this, the only answer that should be given in redress to such is "...read the Constitution".
The First Amendment gives heed to the citizen. In its given authority, We the people offer, through election, representative body to assert the effect of the citizens' voice. It is our duty and responsibility to assure that these duties are performed with and in defense of the Constitution and all that it represents. The way to do that is the election.
Our vote does count. Not as one, but as a whole. Your opinion is and should be your voting precognition. Basically meaning, when in doubt in who or what to vote for, it is best to go with the one that represents you personally. In presentation of such statement I will use myself as an example in how I use my opinion in deciding my casting. When I look at the candidate or proposition the first thing I look at is how the person is dressed. An example, if the candidate is saying they understand my needs and wants, yet this candidate is wearing a suit more expensive than my whole wardrobe. I have to ponder can this person really understand me, and how can they represent me.
This is just a last resort measure. The first and foremost would be to research the issues and decide how close the issues and the candidate resemble my own. When in doubt about such a decision I will most assumingly vote out the incumbent. This reasoning being my own version of term limitation.
Finally, I will get to my final banter on the subject matter. There is a genuine misunderstanding of the Primary and Caucus setup. These are matters of private party convention. Meaning, if you are not affiliated with that party then do not get involved. Now, there are some that will beckon the rights of open primary. There is no such thing as an open primary. If it is open it is an election, and therefore a later election is not needed. The primary ballot is private party business, and if you are not affiliated then stay out of it. This is clearly meant for the liberal-left media in their hawking the nomination outcome.
As for myself, I am rendering a no-show as a party voter at the primary. I will request a ballot for non-party and question matters.
This is One Man's Opinion, and as the First Amendment is still intact let this be my word on the matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)