Greetings.
This past week, I came across something that ought to spur to action every concerned patriot who values states' rights and individual liberty. I am referring specifically to the National Popular Vote (NPV) Interstate Compact.
In summary, this is an initiative that would essentially change the way electoral votes are allocated and given by individual states to presidential candidates in an election year. Whereas most states have traditionally awarded their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes statewide, this new initiative, if enacted by state legislatures and signed into law, would enable states to award electoral votes based on the NATIONWIDE popular vote, as opposed to at the state level.
So far, NPV has been implemented by ten jurisdictions comprising 136 electoral votes (Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington, DC, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and California) and is being considered by 33 chambers in 22 other states.
Let's understand something first: individual states have EVERY right to set their own law as it pertains to allocating and awarding electoral votes. Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution make this very clear. However, this particular initiative would have dangerous ramifications for the American people as well as for the cause of liberty and fair elections.
Let's take California, for example. As many are aware, the Golden State has been a reliably blue state for many years. Under NPV, however, a Republican presidential candidate who takes the nation-wide popular vote would be awarded every one of California's electoral votes over the will of the voters. On the flip side, if traditionally red states like Georgia or Louisiana or Texas were to implement this initiative, a Democrat would claim the electoral votes of each of those states were a Democrat to claim the nationwide popular vote.
Can anyone with common sense seriously claim that either of those scenarios is a fair scenario?
Many proponents of this initiative have sought to justify NPV by making arguments against the current system, some of which are justified. One such argument is that the current system enables presidential candidates to "ignore" states in which they aren't likely to win and, instead, focus on ones that favor them as well as swing states that are up for grabs. Perhaps this is the case and perhaps candidates would do well to devise creative ways in which to campaign in those particular states. However, it is also absurd to think that a better strategy involves giving one state's entire electoral vote count to the candidate for whom the people did not vote.
A better argument in favor of NPV is the classic "popular vote" argument; in other words, because the winner of the popular vote DID NOT WIN in four out of our previous fifty-seven presidential elections, NPV (or something like it) is needed. Again, this is a fairly solid argument. After all, if elections are decided by the voters, then why shouldn't the popular vote carry more weight?
The Presidential election is a bit of a different animal, however, and with good reason. Historically, our country's method of electing a president did not involve a popular vote because of the remoteness and disconnectedness of most of the country at that time. In other words, it made more sense for Congress to meet in order to elect a president rather than have every citizen vote for a candidate for whom he or she might have never even heard of. While that is hardly the case today, thanks in no small part to technological advancement, it is still necessary for the President to be determined by electoral votes granted by the states based on THEIR popular vote. This is simply because individual states are to be SOVEREIGN and largely self-governing entities. Any measure that takes the electoral votes away from the determination of states' voters is a virtual muzzle for the states' voters and amounts to an almost unfathomable loss of voice and loss of liberty.
True patriots and those who are passionate about individual liberty ought to pay close attention to what is happening here and waste NO time in contacting your elected state representatives and state senators immediately if you discover that your state is considering adopting this measure. The right to vote, the right to have your voice heard and your vote count is invaluable and could very well be lost if NPV is passed by your state legislature.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php
Act today. And live free.
-Warren Brisbane
Friday, April 25, 2014
Friday, April 18, 2014
Good Friday and The Bundy Ranch aftermath
Hello, Patriots.
A few important observations in the wake of the latest news out of Nevada.
As many are already aware, BLM agents have stood down in the face of increasing tensions surrounding the immediate area of the Bundy Ranch. Citing deep (and legitimate) concerns about the potential for armed conflict, the federal government has directed its law enforcement assets to not pursue any further action against the Bundy family or their property at this time. In and of itself, this is good news.
However, claims have surfaced in the aftermath that this is somehow a definitive "victory" for Cliven Bundy and his supporters, and it should be pointed out that this is a terribly misguided conclusion to jump to right now. While we should applaud and affirm the fact that there likely isn't to be a violent resolution to the Bundy affair in the short term, the reality is that NO ONE should assume that there won't be at some point down the road. In NO way should the federal government's recent actions be perceived as "backing down" or conceding victory to Cliven Bundy and those of us who affirm individual liberty and property rights.
Anyone who does perceive the government's actions this way should take special note of remarks by Senator Harry Reid made late this past week when he overtly and blatantly referred to Bundy supporters as "domestic terrorists." Such an arrogant, misguided, not to mention hypocritical, statement should tell those of us who are awake and paying attention all we need to know about where this situation currently stands; as well as where it might be headed.
Bottom line: we are still at a cross-roads between revolution and peaceful slavery. Whether the matter gets resolved peacefully or via violent means remains to be determined. But supporters and defenders of liberty should still regard Cliven Bundy and his ranch as a flashpoint for the battle for individual rights. And we must continue to stand ready to support courageous individuals like Cliven Bundy whenever the need may arise; to include taking up arms against tyranny, if necessary.
On a separate note, as Easter weekend approaches, I pray that those of us that adhere to the Christian faith will take time to commemorate the ultimate act of defiance and rebellion; that of Jesus Christ when He defied Satan and gave His life so that mankind could live free from the tyranny of sin. For those of us who do NOT adhere to the Christian faith, however, my hope and prayer is that the message of the Cross will resonate with you nonetheless and that you too will be moved to continue fighting against tyranny in its every form.
Christ is ALIVE!!! Matthew 28:5-6.
Until next week, stay vigilant!
-Warren Brisbane
A few important observations in the wake of the latest news out of Nevada.
As many are already aware, BLM agents have stood down in the face of increasing tensions surrounding the immediate area of the Bundy Ranch. Citing deep (and legitimate) concerns about the potential for armed conflict, the federal government has directed its law enforcement assets to not pursue any further action against the Bundy family or their property at this time. In and of itself, this is good news.
However, claims have surfaced in the aftermath that this is somehow a definitive "victory" for Cliven Bundy and his supporters, and it should be pointed out that this is a terribly misguided conclusion to jump to right now. While we should applaud and affirm the fact that there likely isn't to be a violent resolution to the Bundy affair in the short term, the reality is that NO ONE should assume that there won't be at some point down the road. In NO way should the federal government's recent actions be perceived as "backing down" or conceding victory to Cliven Bundy and those of us who affirm individual liberty and property rights.
Anyone who does perceive the government's actions this way should take special note of remarks by Senator Harry Reid made late this past week when he overtly and blatantly referred to Bundy supporters as "domestic terrorists." Such an arrogant, misguided, not to mention hypocritical, statement should tell those of us who are awake and paying attention all we need to know about where this situation currently stands; as well as where it might be headed.
Bottom line: we are still at a cross-roads between revolution and peaceful slavery. Whether the matter gets resolved peacefully or via violent means remains to be determined. But supporters and defenders of liberty should still regard Cliven Bundy and his ranch as a flashpoint for the battle for individual rights. And we must continue to stand ready to support courageous individuals like Cliven Bundy whenever the need may arise; to include taking up arms against tyranny, if necessary.
On a separate note, as Easter weekend approaches, I pray that those of us that adhere to the Christian faith will take time to commemorate the ultimate act of defiance and rebellion; that of Jesus Christ when He defied Satan and gave His life so that mankind could live free from the tyranny of sin. For those of us who do NOT adhere to the Christian faith, however, my hope and prayer is that the message of the Cross will resonate with you nonetheless and that you too will be moved to continue fighting against tyranny in its every form.
Christ is ALIVE!!! Matthew 28:5-6.
Until next week, stay vigilant!
-Warren Brisbane
Friday, April 11, 2014
The Bundy Ranch and the Fight for Liberty
Hello, readers.
This week's edition is focusing on the struggle for property rights taking place right now in southeast Nevada.
For those not already familiar with the story, a cattle ranch owned by the family of Cliven Bundy is now surrounded by federal agents who have made multiple threats to confiscate his cattle over a public lands dispute that has been festering for over two decades.
First, some background information: Bundy's ranch has been in his family for over a century. Additionally, according to Bundy himself, his forebears worked the same land surrounding the ranch that is now considered public land and on which Bundy has enjoyed grazing rights for his cattle for decades. Until recently. Thanks to a decision by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and a ruling by a federal court judge, the land is now a protected habitat for the Desert Tortoise and, thus, off limits to Bundy's cattle. This decision was made despite the fact that Bundy has for years paid the exorbitant fees required to maintain his grazing rights. To the federal government, however, none of that matters anymore.
Bundy, however, in an example of civil disobedience that should someday be in every civics textbook in every American classroom, has refused to comply with the new law and has continued to allow his cattle to graze on the public land.
Now the real fun begins. Federal BLM agents have surrounded his property, threatened to confiscate his cattle, and have actually been witnessed inflicting physical violence on his family members and other individuals who have shown up in support of Bundy. As a result, people on both sides of the issue are increasingly concerned about an outbreak of armed violence and rightfully so.
While there are many implications and subplots surrounding this ongoing situation, the most important question has to be: what does Cliven Bundy's ranch mean in the grand scheme of things? And the answer, I think, is simple. As Americans, we have watched over the centuries as our civil liberties and individual rights have been, one-by-one, trampled on by an unaccountable government at the federal, state, and local levels. And we have done nothing...until now. The reality of the matter here is that people (at least those who are awake and paying attention) will tolerate only so much oppression and tyranny before they react...violently if necessary.
Attention should be given to this potentially explosive situation. Time will tell if it continues to escalate, even to the point of armed conflict and (dare I say it) revolution, or if it ends up at a peaceful outcome. In either case, engaged patriots should take note of the actions of Cliven Bundy and seek to embody his spirit of civil disobedience whenever necessary and whenever possible. I have said before and I will say again: commitment to essential liberty is best measured not by flags and slogans, but by one's willingness to defy, quietly if necessary, unjust and oppressive laws and dictates.
In the meantime, let's stand with Cliven Bundy and stand ready to support him, financially or in spirit or otherwise, however necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE
Until next week, stay vigilant!
This week's edition is focusing on the struggle for property rights taking place right now in southeast Nevada.
For those not already familiar with the story, a cattle ranch owned by the family of Cliven Bundy is now surrounded by federal agents who have made multiple threats to confiscate his cattle over a public lands dispute that has been festering for over two decades.
First, some background information: Bundy's ranch has been in his family for over a century. Additionally, according to Bundy himself, his forebears worked the same land surrounding the ranch that is now considered public land and on which Bundy has enjoyed grazing rights for his cattle for decades. Until recently. Thanks to a decision by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and a ruling by a federal court judge, the land is now a protected habitat for the Desert Tortoise and, thus, off limits to Bundy's cattle. This decision was made despite the fact that Bundy has for years paid the exorbitant fees required to maintain his grazing rights. To the federal government, however, none of that matters anymore.
Bundy, however, in an example of civil disobedience that should someday be in every civics textbook in every American classroom, has refused to comply with the new law and has continued to allow his cattle to graze on the public land.
Now the real fun begins. Federal BLM agents have surrounded his property, threatened to confiscate his cattle, and have actually been witnessed inflicting physical violence on his family members and other individuals who have shown up in support of Bundy. As a result, people on both sides of the issue are increasingly concerned about an outbreak of armed violence and rightfully so.
While there are many implications and subplots surrounding this ongoing situation, the most important question has to be: what does Cliven Bundy's ranch mean in the grand scheme of things? And the answer, I think, is simple. As Americans, we have watched over the centuries as our civil liberties and individual rights have been, one-by-one, trampled on by an unaccountable government at the federal, state, and local levels. And we have done nothing...until now. The reality of the matter here is that people (at least those who are awake and paying attention) will tolerate only so much oppression and tyranny before they react...violently if necessary.
Attention should be given to this potentially explosive situation. Time will tell if it continues to escalate, even to the point of armed conflict and (dare I say it) revolution, or if it ends up at a peaceful outcome. In either case, engaged patriots should take note of the actions of Cliven Bundy and seek to embody his spirit of civil disobedience whenever necessary and whenever possible. I have said before and I will say again: commitment to essential liberty is best measured not by flags and slogans, but by one's willingness to defy, quietly if necessary, unjust and oppressive laws and dictates.
In the meantime, let's stand with Cliven Bundy and stand ready to support him, financially or in spirit or otherwise, however necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE
Until next week, stay vigilant!
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Muzzling the Watchdog
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH; OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, United States Constitution.
Recently, news broke that there were enough votes in the United States Senate to pass a bill that would "protect" journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources. This bill no doubt originated in the aftermath of one particular journalist (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/fox-news-jana-winter-not-reveal-sources-aurora) being threatened by the government with fines and/or imprisonment after she refused to reveal her own information or sources during her coverage of the Aurora Colorado movie theater shooting back in 2012.
On the surface, giving such protection to journalists sounds like a good thing. After all, if those who report on current events and who break stories of historical significance are constantly having to look over their shoulders to see if government agents are threatening to punish them, a de facto stifling of the First Amendment is at that point a reality.
However, this bill should be seen for the Trojan Horse that it is. Specifically, according news sources, its language is such that it applies to "professional" journalists only; in other words, “'covered journalist,' defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information." While it could potentially be argued that such a definition could apply to free-lance writers and the like, the reality is that in all likelihood this bill would fail to cover anyone not working for an official publication of some kind. In other words, if I, as a blogger, come across information that has far-reaching implications in a trial or investigation and am asked to keep my sources confidential, then the government can coerce me to divulge my sources and essentially shut me down as an independent reporter. And this constitutes a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Professional journalists serve a valuable purpose to a free society; at least those who take seriously their duty to report and inform. However, the First Amendment does not just apply to those that the government determines are covered by it. It applies to all.
My hope, therefore, is that this bill will be defeated soundly in either the Senate or the House and that people will continue to speak freely in defiance of any law that seeks to muzzle them. Free speech is integral to a free society.
Until next week. Live Free
-Warren Brisbane
Recently, news broke that there were enough votes in the United States Senate to pass a bill that would "protect" journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources. This bill no doubt originated in the aftermath of one particular journalist (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/fox-news-jana-winter-not-reveal-sources-aurora) being threatened by the government with fines and/or imprisonment after she refused to reveal her own information or sources during her coverage of the Aurora Colorado movie theater shooting back in 2012.
On the surface, giving such protection to journalists sounds like a good thing. After all, if those who report on current events and who break stories of historical significance are constantly having to look over their shoulders to see if government agents are threatening to punish them, a de facto stifling of the First Amendment is at that point a reality.
However, this bill should be seen for the Trojan Horse that it is. Specifically, according news sources, its language is such that it applies to "professional" journalists only; in other words, “'covered journalist,' defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information." While it could potentially be argued that such a definition could apply to free-lance writers and the like, the reality is that in all likelihood this bill would fail to cover anyone not working for an official publication of some kind. In other words, if I, as a blogger, come across information that has far-reaching implications in a trial or investigation and am asked to keep my sources confidential, then the government can coerce me to divulge my sources and essentially shut me down as an independent reporter. And this constitutes a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Professional journalists serve a valuable purpose to a free society; at least those who take seriously their duty to report and inform. However, the First Amendment does not just apply to those that the government determines are covered by it. It applies to all.
My hope, therefore, is that this bill will be defeated soundly in either the Senate or the House and that people will continue to speak freely in defiance of any law that seeks to muzzle them. Free speech is integral to a free society.
Until next week. Live Free
-Warren Brisbane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)