Responding to State Senator James Sheehan of Rhode Island on The National Popular Vote Plan


State Senator James C. Sheehan (D-RI) wrote an article titled The National Popular Vote compact would sideline our state. This article was published in the Westerly Sun of Westerly, Rhode Island.The National Popular Vote Plan is an interstate compact, whereby participating states would agree to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, as opposed to the candidate who secures the most votes in their state. The compact would take effect when enough states (constituting the requisite 270 electoral votes required to win the Presidential election) agree to participate. Currently 8 states and the District of Columbia, constituting 132 Electoral votes, have ratified the compact.Mr. Sheehan argues that under the Plan "big states and big money would be the likely winners and the Rhode Island's voice would go from small to obscure and insignificant."In actuality however, no candidate could win an election by focusing solely on the largest populated state(s). These states tend to cancel each other out; creating an environment wherein candidates will have to garner votes in small and medium sized states as well. California and Texas are the nation's two largest states. California has voted for the Democratic Presidential nominee in the last five elections. In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama won the state with 61% of the vote. There was no serious effort by the Republicans to even contest the state.

Contrariwise, Texas, the second biggest state, has not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter won the state in 1976. There has been no serious effort on the part of Democrats to win the state since 1992. In 2008, while Democrat Barack Obama won the Presidency with a comfortable 52.9% of the vote, Republican John McCain won the loan star state with a formidable 55.4% of the vote.Ironically, under the current winner-take-all regime of awarding Presidential electors, which is employed in 48 states, both large and small states are ignored. The three largest states, California, Texas, and New York are used by candidates merely as ATM machines. Presidential candidates raise campaign money from these states' benefactors, but make no effort to cultivate support from these states' voters. Contrariwise, of the 13 smallest states, only New Hampshire is a perennial showdown state. The other 12 states are "safe states" which receive no attention from the Presidential candidates.As for the influence of "big money," the same amount of money would be raised under the National Popular Vote Plan as is raised presently. The only change is that the preponderance of the money collected "would not" be spent in just 15 battleground states.Under the National Popular Vote Plan, the political voice of the Ocean State would actually be amplified. Currently, the state attracts no attention from Presidential candidates because it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the state will be won by the Democratic nominee by a wide margin. The state last went for a Republican in 1984, as part of Ronald Reagan's 49-state landslide victory. In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama carried 38 of the state's 39 municipalities without even campaigning in the state.Under the National Popular Vote Plan, every vote throughout the nation will be in play. No voter will be ignored because of his or her disadvantageous geopolitical residence. Presidential campaigns will have one goal, to muster as many votes as possible.

Under the current status quo, there is no electoral reason for a candidate to pay any attention to Rhode Island's commercial fishermen, its manufacturing industry, or the state's Agricultural output.Under the National Popular Vote Plan, Presidential candidates will have causes belie to address these issues. They will have an electoral incentive to open campaign offices in Rhode Island, send surrogates to address Rhode Islanders, and to cultivate and galvanize their political bases. Candidates would spend their campaign war chests not just within the 15 or so showdown states, but would likely spend money throughout the nation, including in Rhode Island.Mr. Sheehan warns: "The legislation also proposes to give our state's electoral votes not necessarily to the presidential candidates of our residents' choice but to the candidate who wins a majority of votes across the nation."This statement flies in the face of the fact that more than 70% of Rhode Island voters support a National Popular Vote. When an national election is decided against a voter's chosen candidate, the voter is not likely to take solace in the fact that the candidate captured their state. A supporter of John Kerry from Rhode Island in 2004 was probably not reveling in the fact that the Democratic nominee won the Ocean State. The national election is what counts for the voter, and Kerry lost.At the state level where a National Popular Vote is employed, there is no focus on how a candidate fared in a certain municipality. For example, a voter in Smithfield, Rhode Island was probably not focusing on the fact that Republican Gubernatorial nominee John F. Robitaille handily won the municipality. Instead, the voter was more likely to be focusing on the fact that Independent Candidate Lincoln Chafee won the state.Mr. Sheehan admonishes that under the National Popular Vote Plan: "Major population centers would become even more important in the race for president, while towns and rural areas could be largely ignored." Despite Mr. Sheehan's conclusions, the nation's large urban areas comprise only a smidgen of the total electorate. In fact, the nation's top 25 cities comprise only 12% of the electorate, and the nation's five largest populated cities constitute just 6% of the electorate. Accordingly, to win the national popular vote, a candidate must appeal to the large majority of Americans who do not live in these urban centers of which Mr. Sheehan speaks. It would be politically foolhardy for a Presidential candidate to focus exclusively or even largely on urban centers.We see the ineffectiveness of this argument at the state level. In 2010, Texas Governor Rick Perry was re-elected by 13 percentage points, despite being overwhelmingly defeated in the state's two largest cities, Houston and Dallas. In fact, these two cities are two of the highest populated U.S. cities. Furthermore, George Pataki served three terms as Governor of New York, despite being wiped out in the nation's largest city, New York. Finally, California has elected four Governors in the last 46 years who did not come close to carrying the state's largest city, Los Angeles.Lastly, Mr. Sheehan advises that supporters of the National Popular Vote Plan "should submit this idea as a constitutional amendment, instead of exploiting a loophole in constitutional law and trying to affect voting change through state legislatures." Perhaps Mr. Sheehan does not realize that the National Popular Vote Plan in no way circumvents the U.S. Constitution. In fact, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution mandating that the President must be selected by a particular electoral method. Accordingly, there is absolutely no need for a Constitutional Amendment to change the method that states use for the awarding of electors. The Founding Fathers could not arrive at a resolution as to how to award electoral votes at the Constitutional Convention. Given this impasse, they decided to delegated "plenary authority" to the states to award their electors, as reflected in Article ll, Section 1, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." Accordingly, each state has autonomy to select electors in any way that it deems fit.In conclusion, the National Popular Vote Plan would give Rhode Island voters the seat at the electoral table that they are currently lacking. Rhode Island was the first state to declare independence from Britain. Under the National Popular Vote Plan, Presidential candidates will treat the Ocean State with the respect that it deserves.

YouTube Racist Turned Crusader


Back in 1990, as Bob Miller, a country recording artist and bestselling author, pulled on to Highway 50 out of South Lake Tahoe, the snow had just begin to pile up and he assumed the road block ahead was to inform motorists that chains were required to get over the pass. Not in a million years would he have dreamed it had been set up to catch had gone to South Lake Tahoe to visit a Vietnam War buddy, and it was during this time that Miller gave one of his anti-Bush speeches… "I've heard all my life that you 'Can't powder a pig.' Nothing better describes what we Republicans have been trying to do for the last few years."When George Bush invaded Panama, I thought what on earth can I say to the American people so they will not forget every decent thing the Republican Party has ever done? What can I say when they find out that we got their sons and daughters killed, murdered over 200 hundred unarmed civilians who were not involved in the fighting or street disorders, destroyed countless homes and businesses we cannot afford to replace? Have spent over $150 million dollars we don't have just to satisfy a man's vendetta? Little did I know that he had just gotten started."With every newspaper in the country filled with the savings and loan scandal and Bush's popularity on the express elevator down, he drew a line in the sand.

The only ones on this earth who do no know we killed hundreds of our own people and again spent million we don't have for the sake of oil and a man's political future are ostriches. It is true that Bush does care about the people of Kuwait. He cares about them as he does the American people, in direct proportion to what they can do for him."Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not campaigning against a fellow Republican. Bush does not represent the Republican Party or any other party for that matter.

He represents George Bush."What Miller didn't know was that there was an attorney in attendance who was a personal friend of George H.W. Bush. Miller might have still gotten away with this speech, as he had done many times before, but thinking he was among friends, he added a few remarks that voided any protection under the First Amendment of the he failed to retract his words at this Secret Service roadblock, off he went to a lock-up ward at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Menlo Park, California. Had Miller not been a Vietnam War hero and a friend of a U.S. Senator, he most likely would have been carted off to Leavenworth. For those who might be interested in watching videos titled, Cowardly Blacks, and If Alabama Bridges Could Talk, simply go to YouTube or click on titles. A word of warning, even though Bob Miller is a registered Republican, his videos are not recommended for members of the Republican base or the followers of the late Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy or Jim Jones.

Hilariously Mistranslated Political Issues


Just like interpreting, translation is a complex process. BThe fact that you can speak the language, does not mean you can translate something competently. There are several sectors in the world that had been lost in translation. Getting lost in translation can be potentially dangerous and may cause plenty of embarrassment.There are some instances that getting lost in translation pulled down the credibility and the good image of a political leader. Most often, being lost in translation about the politicians occurred during an election or a political campaign. Lines or speeches of politicians are often lost in translation. However, those speeches are hilarious and some are really incredibly embarrassing.One of the funny examples about politicians that were lost in translation was to do with French political leader Rachida Dati made a speech on the radio, but her speech was full of criticism.

Unfortunately, she seemed to be confused between oral sex and inflation and used the word fellatio instead of inflation. The former justice minister apologised on her facebook account right away after the hilarious incident.The Italian leader, Silvio Berlusconi lost his face when he presented a really embarrassing and funny translation about his ministries' biographies. The translation of the biographies was posted on a government website. However, Berlusconi described his spokesperson as a ''megaphone'', one of his ministries as a graduate of the University of ''Mouthfuls'', and a professor as a ''walnut''. In addition, he described his community policy minister as having ''graduated himself'', and through the help of Prof Augusto of the ''walnut''. Walnut is the literal translation of the name of their professor called Prof Augusto della Noce.In the United States, they have this concept for businesspeople and politician to determine first the culture and tradition of their clients to avoid uncomfortable scenes, critics and issues.

However, the Indonesian Information Minister found it awkward when the U.S first lady shook his hand. In Muslim tradition, men are prohibited from touching any woman, even if it is just shaking their hands, who are not family members. Moreover, the video was been criticized in Muslim countries especially because the minister was seen in the video, smiling sweetly upon shaking the hand of the U.S first lady. In addition, one U.S journalist posted something on the label of the video along the lines of ''the cutest political sex scandal ever?''I guess if you were one of the leaders in the scene, it would be awkward and not fun if you will hear some negative criticism, especially when they are making fun of you. However, this is usually the case in every politician that will be in the spotlight. Every people has their own taste, thus, they will criticize you in every way that they like.In addition, if this is so, why do you think the U.S first lady had not been briefed by any of their advisers or their Whitehouse interpreter not to offer her hand to be shaken by a Muslim man? For sure, the first lady did not go there by herself, she went there with an interpreter and advisors as well. Or maybe it's an example of how Americans just don't want to know other cultures.