The “I Want My Stuff Crowd” Wins Another Round

“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannize but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

On Tuesday night we suffered the culmination of 100 years of progressivism. It was a night when Americans lost the battle between those who want free stuff and those who want freedom. Yes, I know Obama won with 303 Electoral Votes (probably 332 when the final count from Florida comes in), but he only beat Romney by 2,805,978 votes or 2.3%. More importantly Obama won the so called battleground states of Florida, Virginia, and Ohio by 0.6%, 3.0%, and 1.9% respectively (Florida-47,016, Virginia-112,884, and Ohio-100,142) In the case of Ohio a large portion, if not all of Obama’s victory came from Cuyahoga County where he attained a plurality of 236,478 votes (68.8%). In Virginia Obama’s victory was advanced by a 127,627 vote plurality from Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties — counties populated by government workers. Florida was even closer where Obama received a plurality of 552,715 votes from Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties for an average of 62.5% of the votes cast in those counties. (Hat tip to the Huffington Post for their very informative Electoral Maps)

By now you should be tiered with numbers so I will add only one more statistic. According to reports 11% of women voted for Obama and Hispanics broke 2:1 for him. Single women from 20 to 31 broke 31% for Obama. The big issue for single women was abortion and birth control, Issues that were never debated by either candidate. It appears that these women will sacrifice their country for a free condom.

In watching the election returns on Tuesday night three things struck me. The first was John Boehner’s impromptu speech before the election was called for Obama. To me this seemed to be Boehner’s way of calling a Romney defeat and posing himself as the new leader of the GOP. His actions were unprecedented. I have just learned that he wants to propose an economic plan to Obama. That is insanity on his part. It is Obama’s responsibility to propose a plan and the House’s responsibility to accept or reject it. The ball is in Obama’s court where he must stand on his plan and explain it to the American People. Boehner is playing into Obama’s hands.

The second was the way the “experts” on Fox News kept telling us what the GOP needed to do to win the presidency. They talked about reaching out to women and Hispanics. They talked about moving to the “center” and not appearing to be right-wing conservatives. To most of them this election was about winning, not about principles. Neither the Democrat nor the Republican spinners talked about principles and what each party stood for.

What does the Republican Party stand for today? If you listened to Mitt Romney it stood for lower taxes, job creation and the economy. That’s not enough. The party was founded on the principle of anti-slavery, but today I think, in many cases, it stands for getting elected and to do that they have to be more like the Democrats. If that’s the case than elections are mere popularity contests. During the debates there was no discussion of the Constitution, securing the borders, or our founding principles. Romney believed if he stuck to the economy and did not fight back against the scurrilous attacks by the Obama machine and the press he would win. He was wrong. Romney seemed more like a economic technocrat than a politician willing to fight for liberty.

The third thing was Obama’s victory speech. Once the networks called the election for him he came out before the cameras and started his speech with these 31 words:

"Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny to perfect our union moves forward."

Grammar, you see, is how we clarify meaning. The Obama Code rests on vagueness, on multiple meanings that can be read into a statement. For the literati, the meaning can be clear, while the rest of us respond to what we guess is meant, based on the pleasant connotations of many of the words chosen. Nice words like "perfect."

The second element of the Obama Code is the wink to the hard left buried in his word choices. You see, he told us that our "destiny" is "to perfect our union." The wisdom of our Constitution, a "flawed document" in Obama's eyes, is that it does not promise perfection, but rather checks and balances. It consists of "negative rights" and doesn't obligate government to guarantee largesse ("positive rights," like health care) to its citizens.

That must change. That is the agenda. President Obama has shown a willingness to ignore the Constitution whenever it suits him, overriding creditors' rights, ignoring the Constitutional cabinet officers in favor of czars not subject to the inconvenience of a confirmation process, assassinating American citizens with no judicial involvement, and issuing frightening executive orders.

The code message dispensed with, the rest of the speech continued to appall. Andrew Malcolm of Investor's Business Daily, in a mordantly hilarious column, drew a contrast:

"Romney in 703 words graciously admitted his loss. He said the word "America" five times, the word "pray" three times and the words "Thank you" 21 times.

The Real Good Talker, who's never seen anything he couldn't throw a speech at, took 2,163 words to claim victory in what is traditionally a moment to call for unity and healing after a divisive campaign.

The victorious Chicagoan, who promised before the last election to end Washington's partisan bitterness, strangely uttered the word "fight" five times and "thank you" but seven times. He spoke the word "unify" zero times, "unity" zero times, "heal" zero times and "pray" zero times.

He did, however, manage to mention himself 27 times.”

We had best gird our loins. When it comes to ruthless leftism, we ain't seen nothin' yet.”

Now for a few words on the media and how they helped Obama get reelected. Reviewing the 2012 presidential campaign, here are five ways the media elite tipped the public relations scales in favor of the liberal Obama and against the conservative challenger Mitt Romney. According to Rich Noyes of Fox News here are the five major ways media bias helped Obama:

“1. The Media’s Biased Gaffe Patrol Hammered Romney: The media unfairly jumped on inconsequential mistakes — or even invented controversies — from Romney and hyped them in to multi-day media “earthquakes.” Case in point: the GOP candidate’s trip to Europe and Israel in late July. A Media Research Center analysis of all 21 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Romney’s trip found that virtually all of them (18, or 86%) emphasized “diplomatic blunders,” “gaffes” or “missteps.”

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer blasted the news coverage in an August 2 column, calling the trip “a major substantive success” that was wrapped “in a media narrative of surpassing triviality.”

Similarly, when the left-wing Mother Jones magazine in September put out a secretly-recorded video of Romney talking to donors about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, the networks hyped it like a sensational sex scandal. Over three days, the broadcast network morning and evening shows churned out 42 stories on the tape, nearly 90 minutes of coverage. The tone was hyperbolic; ABC’s "Good Morning America" called it a “bombshell rocking the Mitt Romney campaign,” while ABC "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer declared it a “political earthquake.”

None of Obama’s gaffes garnered that level of coverage. After the president in a June 8 press conference declared that “the private sector is doing fine,” the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts gave it just one night’s coverage, then basically dropped the story — nothing further on ABC’s "World News" or the "CBS Evening News" in the weeks that followed, and just two passing references on the "NBC Nightly News."

And, when Obama infamously declared, “You didn’t build that,” ABC, CBS, NBC didn’t report the politically damaging remark for four days — and then only after Romney made it the centerpiece of a campaign speech.

2. Pounding Romney With Partisan Fact Checking: There’s nothing wrong with holding politicians accountable for the honesty of their TV ads and stump speeches, but this year the self-appointed media fact-checkers attacked Republicans as liars for statements that were accurate.

For example, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter writing for PolitiFact branded VP candidate Paul Ryan’s convention speech anecdote about the closing of the General Motors plant in his hometown as “false,” even though Ryan was correct in all of his details. The slanted review became TV reporters’ talking points; the next day on NBC, correspondent Chuck Todd grumped that while what Ryan said “was technically factual, by what he left out, [he] actually distorted the actual truth.” Matt Lauer greeted Ryan the following week in an interview on Today: “There are some people who are claiming that you played a little fast and loose with the truth....”

The same thing happened when Mitt Romney talked about Obama’s “apology tour” during the final presidential debate. While in 2009 Obama had, in fact, criticized the United States as “arrogant,” “derisive” and having “too often... set [our] principles aside,” the networks said to call it an “apology tour” was “false” because, as CNN’s John Berman tenuously insisted, “even if he was critical of past U.S. foreign policy, he issued no apologies.”

Writing in the New York Times August 31, correspondent Jackie Calmes scolded that “the number of falsehoods and misleading statements from the Romney campaign coming in for independent criticism has reached a level not typically seen.” That’s not true, either; Romney’s team was, at worst, guilty of highlighting those facts that best illustrated their points (something done by all politicians), and the Obama campaign certainly put out their share of tawdry TV ads and dubious campaign claims.

But with “truth cops” who mainly policed just the GOP side of the street, the media used “fact-checking” as another club to tilt the playing field in favor of the Democrats.

3. Those Biased Debate Moderators: Upset liberals scorned PBS’s Jim Lehrer for taking a hands-off approach in the first debate on October 3, with MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman slamming him as “practically useless” for not jumping into the debate on behalf of President Obama.

Such criticism may have encouraged the activist approach taken by ABC’s Martha Raddatz in the vice presidential debate October 11, and by CNN’s Candy Crowley in the October 16 town hall debate, as both of those journalists repeatedly interrupted the Republican candidate and larded the discussion with a predominantly liberal agenda.

Crowley earns extra demerits for taking the media’s penchant for faulty fact-checking to new heights when she jumped into the October 16 town hall-style debate to validate President Obama’s claim that he called the attack in Benghazi, Libya, “an act of terror” the very next morning. Crowley endorsed Obama’s story, telling Romney: “He did, in fact, sir, call it an act of terror.”

Not according to the transcript, which had Obama only speaking generically about how “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” not assigning that label to the violence in Benghazi.

Wrong though she was, Crowley became a heroine to many in the liberal media; ABC's Matt Dowd, for example, cheered: “What Candy Crowley did, I actually thought, was laudable. I hope we get to do more of that in this discourse.”

Moderators are supposed to ensure both sides get a fair hearing, not pick sides. By leaping into the fray, Candy Crowley epitomized the media’s itch to tilt the scales this year — again, in Obama’s favor.

4. The Benghazi Blackout: Right after the September 11 attack in Libya, the networks proclaimed that the events would bolster President Obama — “reminding voters of his power as commander-in-chief,” as NBC’s Peter Alexander stated on the September 14 edition of "Today." But as a cascade of leaked information erased the portrait of Obama as a heroic commander, the broadcast networks shunted the Benghazi story to the sidelines.

News broke online in late September, for example, that Team Obama knew within 24 hours that the attack was likely the result of terrorism. That starkly contradicted claims from White House press secretary Jay Carney, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and President Obama himself that the attack was a “spontaneous” reaction to an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. Yet, ABC took nearly two days to bring this story to viewers, while CBS and NBC held off for three days.

This was, shamefully, the broadcast networks’ pattern in October: New developments exposing the administration’s failure to provide adequate security, or contradictions in their public statements, were either given stingy coverage or buried completely. The puzzle pieces revealed a disturbing failure of Obama’s national security apparatus, but the networks flitted in and out of the story, never giving it any traction.

Instead of an “October Surprise,” the networks engineered an “October Suppression” — keeping a lid on the boiling Benghazi story until Election Day. Who knows how voters might have reacted if the media had covered this story as tenaciously as they did Romney’s “47% gaffe”?

5. Burying the Bad Economy: Pundits agreed that Obama’s weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of $1 trillion deficits. But the major networks failed to offer the sustained, aggressive coverage of the economy that incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush faced in 1992, or even that George W. Bush faced in 2004 — both years when the national economy was in better shape than it is now.

According to a study conducted that year by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from January through September of 1992, the networks ran a whopping 1,289 stories on the economy, 88% of which painted it in a dismal, negative light. That fall, the unemployment rate was 7.6%, lower than today’s 7.9%, and economic growth in the third quarter was 2.7%, better than today’s 2.0%. Yet the media coverage hammered the idea of a terrible economy, and Bush lost re-election.

In 2004, the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year, according to a study by the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute.

When Republican presidents have faced reelection, network reporters made sure to spotlight economic “victims” — the homeless man, the woman without health insurance, the unemployed worker, the senior citizen who had to choose between medicine and food. But this year, with an economy as bad as any since the Great Depression, those sympathetic anecdotes have vanished from the airwaves — a huge favor to Obama and the Democrats.

Given Obama’s record, the Romney campaign could have overcome much of this media favoritism and still prevailed — indeed, they almost did. But taken together, these five trends took the media’s historical bias to new levels this year, and saved Obama’s presidency in the process.”

While the media played its part for the Democrat Party as they have done for many years it must be pointed out that Ronald Reagan not only had a hostile media, but a hostile Republican Party to deal with and he won big two times. Why? My answer is that he had a message that resonated with the American people. He had charisma and the ability to connect with all voters, be they Black, union, Democrats or Conservatives. This is the type of candidate the Republicans need, not some retread RHNO who will attempt to move towards the Democrats and lose again.

On a more positive note the Republicans now control 30 governorships. This should be a good pool to draw the next presidential candidate from.

"At times like these, after a bitter and hard-fought election, it's customary to talk about burying the hatchet, reaching across the aisle — pick your metaphor. It dawns on politicians that the public is sick of division and wants them to work together for the good of the country. This time is different, at least from my vantage point. Had Mitt Romney won the election, he would be reaching out to the other side already, without being told to. But Barack Obama is not that kind of politician or man. He thrives on division and reflexively demonizes his opponents.

The American people, by a slim majority, have chosen to go through four more years of a presidency that doesn't seem to have a clue about bipartisanship. What's worse this time is that America has lost four precious years to work out the tax and entitlement reforms it needs to ward off fiscal disaster. Another four years of gridlock brings national bankruptcy that much closer. Then there's the dead weight of ObamaCare, which will soon hit the economy with full force. The next four years would be challenging even for a popular and politically masterful president. Obama is neither, and his nasty campaign has only made his job harder.

The election left the House firmly in Republican hands. Until that changes, the GOP can block the advance of Obama's progressive agenda (at least that part of the agenda requiring laws rather than executive orders).

Obama will have other reasons to drive the GOP from its last beachhead. He owes his base some favors for its work in dragging him across the finish line. Unions will want another try at card check. Environmentalists will push for cap-and-trade and a tighter clampdown on coal. The left wing of his party will want to gut defense and ramp up social spending; he'll be happy to go along, if he can.

The Republican Party must be willing to compromise when it is truly in the national interest to do so, but it also should be ready to fight for the Constitution, free enterprise and individual liberty.

In 1777, at a very dark moment amid defeats in the first quest for Liberty -- and just before the fall of Philadelphia and the brutal winter at Valley Forge, Washington wrote one of his generals: "We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times."

I am reminded of the words of Thomas Paine from his Revolutionary pamphlet, The American Crisis: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

When Samuel Adams signed the Declaration, he said, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

Indeed, God is Sovereign in the affairs of men.

As for the challenges we face, hold fast to this wisdom from James 1:2-4: "Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."

We have lost a battle, not the war. Hold your head high and redouble your courage and resolve. Remain steadfast in your devotion to Liberty and hold the line.

The Founders vs. the Progressives

"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” — James Madison, National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

Today when we look back on the words of our Founders we can find a multitude of their thoughts and writings on our rights to property and taxation and the role of government in protecting those rights.

The thinking of The Founders and of their fellow Americans did not limit the meaning of the word "property" so as to apply merely to things material: physical things. They considered that Man's rights in general—separate and apart from material possessions—were also an extremely important, if not the most valuable, part of his property. This general line of thought—reflecting truly American thinking of that day, of The Founders second to none—was never expressed more soundly and clearly than in the essay on "Property" by Madison published in The National Gazette (one of a series of essays by him on various topics so published) on March 29, 1792. Brief but comprehensive in presenting this characteristically American viewpoint, the full text of the essay deserves consideration. Here are a few of Madison’s thoughts on property rights and the government’s role in securing those rights:

"This term in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

"In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.”

"In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

"In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.”

"He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.”

"He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.”

"He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.”

"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.”

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

"According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just security to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.”

"More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or lettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and inalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.”

"A just security to property is not afforded by that government under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.”

"If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments."

When it comes to taxes our Founders had a great deal to say about the potential of the corrosive nature of taxes and wealth redistribution.

“If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 21 — 1787.

In Federalist No. 21 Alexander Hamilton had this to say about a tax on consumption as opposed to a person’s wealth:

“It is a singular advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end purposed - that is, an extension of the revenue.

In Federalist No. 12 Hamilton said:

“It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation.”

And finally Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 35 about complicated and burdensome tax laws:

“There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy, so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue. It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome.”

In Thomas Jefferson’s 1816 letter to Joseph Milligan he stated this about wealth redistribution through taxation:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

In Thomas Jefferson’s 1816 letter to Joseph Milligan he stated:

“For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”

In Federalist No. 10 James Madison stated:

“The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling which they overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.”

I could go on and on with more examples of what our Founders thought of individual rights, property and taxation. When the new Constitution was written our Founders, especially Madison, knew that a government needed the power to raise taxes to pay for the things government should do. This power to tax was spelled out in Article I, Section 8.1 where it states:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

But so important was how Congress could spend those taxes our Founders immediately added 7 enumerated powers limiting what the federal government could spend that money on:

• To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

• To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

• To establish post offices and post roads;

• To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

• To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

• To provide and maintain a navy;

• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

All the other enumerated powers stated in Article I, Section 8 have to do with governance, not spending, although one could make a case that governance would not be possible without money.

It was not until the 16^th Amendment, ratified 45 states in 1913 that a progressive income tax was adopted throughout the land:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

It should be noted that Connecticut, Rhode Island and Utah did not ratify this amendment.

The 16 Amendment flew in the face of what our founders believed and opened the door for the progressives—especially Woodrow Wilson who was a staunch advocate of the progressive income tax—to make much mischief by redistribution the wealth from the wealthier to the poorer. It also gave Congress a unending pot of money to tap for any program the progressives could think of. This includes welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, investments in energy projects, education, school lunches, and providing free birth control to women.

In the coming three weeks you will hear two basic messages emanating from the conventions being held by the two political parties. The Republicans, in Tampa, will talk about reducing the size of the federal government, lowering taxes and regulations, and allowing the private sector to create jobs and grow the economy. They will also talk about entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, keeping more of what you earn, reducing the deficit, paying down the national debt, energy independence, the free market, securing our borders, saving Social Security and Medicare, and the American Dream

In Charlotte the Democrats will talk about taxing the rich, redistribution of wealth, using the power of the government to restrict you freedom, more environmental regulations, spending more money on hand outs to those who would vote for them, reproductive rights (killing babies), free condoms and contraceptives, ObamaCare, fairness, rights for illegal immigrants, how government was (is) responsible for your success, and the American Dream.

You can see the marked difference between the two parties. In 50 years when (if we can) look back on the 2012 presidential election historians will be amazed at what the progressives were offering the American Electorate — free contraception and taxing the rich. What would Madison Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and Adams have to say about the Democratic Party platform and Obama?

Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry, of the University of Colorado, have a system for predicting the Electoral College outcomes of presidential races. Their model has accurately forecast the winner of every presidential race since 1980. According to an article published by UC-Boulder, they even got the Perot-flavored election of 1992, and the Bush-Gore photo finish in 2000, right.

This year, the Bickers-Berry model shows Mitt Romney winning with 320 electoral votes to Obama’s 218, with a 20-vote margin of error. A popular vote margin of 53-47 percent in Romney’s favor is predicted.

The Bickers-Berry model draws upon a wide range of state and national economic data, rather than collating public opinion polls. It anticipates little lasting effect from factors such as the location of the party conventions, the vice-president’s home state, the party affiliation of state governors, or – according to Bickers — “gaffes, political commercials, or day-to-day campaign tactics.” He finds the focus of voters upon big issues “heartening for our democracy.”

The Associated Press notes that “the model does not account for sudden changes in the economy or unexpected developments in states split 50-50.” There appear to be quite a few states fitting that definition at the moment. The Bickers-Berry model has Obama losing almost every swing state, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida.

Interestingly, the model predicts different partisan effects for two key economic factors: “Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income.” That’s obviously not good news for President Obama, who has made double-digit unemployment a permanent feature of the American landscape.

The forecast that has Romney winning with 320 electoral votes is based on five-month-old economic data, with an update planned for September. There are reports today that jobless claims are starting to rise again. Maybe Romney will do even better, when even more dismal Obama economic data is plugged into the Bickers-Berry model.

On the other hand, the professors note that it’s hard to predict if the public will judge the economy in “absolute” or “relative” terms — in other words, will they consider the totality of the Obama record, or will they accept a possible uptick in a few key indicators during October as encouraging signs that the President is turning it around?

This is the first time I have heard of the Bickers-Berry model and It gives me hope. I have seen, however, a marginal uptick in the polls for Romney/Ryan. When reading these national polls you must remember that states like California, New York, and Massachusetts will weigh the national polls heavily toward Obama while States like Texas, Utah, Nebraska, and Oklahoma will weigh in for Romney. Just remember — it’s the Electoral College that matters.

Once the conventions are over and the real hard-nose campaigning begins the people who are on the fence (and there aren’t that many) will begin to make up their minds. The debate is on over the vision the American Voter wants for this Republic — the vision of our Founders or he vision of the progressives.

Where Are The Jobs?

“When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.” — Fredrich August von Hayek

In a new Gallup survey, 9 of the top 10 U.S. markets with the highest job creation are in red states, states with a Republican governor. While 7 of the lowest 10 markets in job creation are in blue states, those with Democratic governors.

Gallup surveyed workers in the 50 largest metro areas about whether employers were hiring or letting people go during 2011. The spread is what Gallup calls their Job Creation Index.

Oklahoma City, OK led their list. Although, coming on the heels of abysmal March job creation numbers from the Labor Department, it's faint praise. Gallup noted, "Oklahoma City led because of the relatively low percentage of workers (12%) who said their employer was letting workers go or decreasing the size of its workforce."

Oklahoma City, Okla., had the highest score on Gallup's Job Creation Index among the 50 largest U.S. metro areas in 2011, followed by Pittsburgh, Pa., and several Southern metros. More than one in three workers in each of the top-performing metro areas said their employer was hiring or expanding the size of its workforce, Although, coming on the heels of abysmal March job creation numbers from the Labor Department, it's faint praise. Gallup noted, "Oklahoma City led because of the relatively low percentage of workers (12%) who said their employer was letting workers go or decreasing the size of its workforce."

The individual components of the metric reveal some other successes and challenges. The San Antonio, Houston, and Memphis, Tenn., metro areas reported the most hiring, while the Riverside, Calif., Virginia Beach, Va., and Las Vegas metro areas reported the most letting go.

The large metro areas in the South tend to have better job creation situations than those in the East and the West. Eight of the top 10 metro areas with the highest Job Creation Index scores are in the South, while eight of the bottom 10 are in the East or West.

It should also be noted that the largest metro areas overall — New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago — ranked closer to the bottom of the list than to the top.

Gallup's Job Creation Index tends to be a strong predictor of jobless claims at the national level, and these results at the local level may also be an indicator of future local unemployment rates. The top five large metros in Gallup's Job Creation Index for 2011 had an average unemployment rate of 7.4% in January 2012, according to not-seasonally adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the bottom five large metros' unemployment rates averaged 10.7%.

In this reporter's opinion, government doesn't create jobs, employers do. Nevertheless it's interesting that so many of the markets which reported relatively strong job creation were in states such as Oklahoma, Florida, and Texas that generally rank low in taxes, and, yes, government services.

Even with Pittsburgh, the Rust Belt city near the top of Gallup's list, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has made job creation and tax relief priorities.

These results would seem to support the GOP's contention that lower taxes encourage job creation and economic growth.

Even more troubling for Dems, the markets where the most folks reported employers were laying off workers were in blue states. Combined with increasing agony at the gas pump, soaring food costs, and depressed — and depressing — real estate values, this could potentially mean more trouble for the “O Team” if this turns out to be a pocketbook election, as many observers expect.

Conversely, if Obama manages to carry these states despite job losses, it may indicate that the nation has reached a tipping point at which more people prefer government benefits to a job.

Along with the jobs report Gallup also publishes and interactive political map showing the recent trends in conservative and liberal leanings in the states. A few examples of the so called “battle ground states” show slight increase in “leaning Republican” from 2009 to 2011:

• Ohio: 2009, 37.0%, 2011, 41.2% and a conservative leaning increase of 3%
• Virginia: 2009, 38.5% 2011, 42.3% and conservative leaning increase of 2.8%
• Florida: 2009, 38.5%, 2011, 40.5% with a conservative leaning increase of 1.6%
• North Carolina: 2009, 38.3%, 2011, 42.1% with a conservative leaning increase of 1.6%
• Missouri: 2009, 37.5%, 2011, 42.8% with a conservative leaning increase of 5.2%

According to Gallup Mississippi is the most conservative state, while D.C. is the most liberal. Mississippi, Utah, Wyoming, and Alabama are the four most conservative states in the U.S., each with 50% or more of its population identifying as conservative. The District of Columbia and Massachusetts are the most liberal states. — no surprises here.

Gallup shows that more states have moved to GOP in 2011. Seventeen states showed a Republican advantage in party affiliation of at least five points in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including D.C. showed a similar Democratic advantage, with 15 competitive Seventeen states showed a Republican advantage in party affiliation of at least five points in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including D.C. showed a similar Democratic advantage, with 15 competitive.

Gallup also shows that Obama’s approval above 50% in 10 states and D.C. in 2011. President Obama's job approval rating exceeded the majority level in 10 states plus the District of Columbia in 2011. His ratings were highest in D.C., Hawaii, and Maryland, and lowest in Utah and Idaho, and declined in most states.

You can use this interactive map to make your own Electoral College predictions.

It should be noted that the top states in hiring are states with right to work laws.

As today’s government-union bosses push higher taxes, establish dues schemes to fund their bloated salaries and union-bought politicians, the evidence has become pretty clear: Government unions have become political, parasitic entities injuring taxpayers and the communities they control (see Central Falls and Providence, RI; Detroit, MI; and the once-great State of California for examples).

In the private sector, however, where taxpayers’ pockets are not in endless supply, the parasitic model of today’s unions, far too often, allows unions drain companies and ends up killing their hosts.

In large measure, the power unions have gained to cripple economies and companies comes from the ability to require workers to pay union dues (or have the workers fired from their jobs should they refuse to pay the union tribute).

In the public sector, union bosses have declared war on Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, Ohio’s John Kasich, Florida’s Rick Scott and, to a lesser extent, Arizona’s Jan Brewer, for their threats to union treasuries through collective bargaining reform.

In the private sector, however, while Indiana finally became the 23rd state in the nation to became a Right-to-Work state—which outlaws unions from having workers fired for refusing to pay union dues—other states like, Maine and Ohio are considering the reform, as well. (Note this page contains an interactive map showing the various states and their RTW laws.)

In Ohio, for example, where unions spent in excess of $30 million to crush reforms to the Buckeye State’s antiquated laws governing collective bargaining for government unions, the state is among the worst states in the nation to do business—only topped by California, New Jersey and New York.

In their Pyrrhic victory in beating back reform, Ohio’s union bosses demonstrated they can dominate a state, regardless of the price. This, in part, may explain why Ohio is losing more high-tech jobs than the national average and companies like NCR are moving to more business-friendly climes like Georgia.

In late March, Ohio’s Buckeye Institute released a report entitled: Ohio Right-To-Work: How the Economic Freedom of Workers Enhances Prosperity.

In the report [in PDF], Economist Richard Vedder and his colleagues state that Ohio’s residents would benefit if the Buckeye State enacted a right-to-work law, making Ohio a more attractive place to do business:

“The typical Ohioan today would have a higher income and standard of living if the Buckeye State had matched the nation in its rate of economic growth in recent decades. However, it did not, and one reason is that the labor climate in the state is unattractive both to businesses making strategic investments and workers wishing to work.”

In addition to pointing out that Ohio’s “substandard performance with respect to economic growth since the late 1970′s would have been eliminated if a right-to-work law had been adopted several decades ago,” Vedder and company estimate that personal income for a family of four would have been $12,000 higher annually if Ohio had a right-to-work law in 1977.

The report provides an excellent analysis on the history of unions’ legal authority to coerce dues from workers, as well as the emergence of states’ ability to enact right-to-work laws in 1947 and the chronology of individual states’ enactment of those laws.

The report also provides a history of Ohio’s failed efforts to enact a right-to-work law in the late 1950s—much of it due to a lack of a clear and cohesive campaign. Like the recent SB5/Issue 2 campaign, where unions outspent and out organized collective bargaining reform proponents, the lack of a united front (right-to-work proponents were besieged with internal divisions in the late-50s) gave unions the upper hand to defeat right-to-work and solidified union power for decades.

Unions and their union dues-funded think tanks, like the Economic Policy Institute, continue to downplay and fight right-to-work laws by claiming right-to-work states have a negative effect on wages.

However, the Buckeye Institute report addresses that issue as well:

“A recent study by Robert Reed helps clear some of the ambiguity by demonstrating that when one controls for the economic conditions of a state prior to its adoption of a RTW law, the relationship between RTW and wages is positive and statistically significant. Reed estimates that when “holding constant economic conditions in 1945—average wages in 2000 [were] 6.68 percent higher in RTW states than non-RTW states.”

The Buckeye Institute’s report on Ohio Right-to Work is an excellent read, both for the economic argument behind right-to-work, as well as the history of the effort in Ohio.

As Ohio continues to lag behind the nation due to the continued domination of unions in that state, over time, more may realize the right-to-work is right for Ohio (and elsewhere, as well).

The Geography Of The 2012 Presidential Election

"These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor-corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, relief laws, and school laws." — Frédéric Bastiat (The Law)

The geographic concentration of much of President Obama's political support in a few large Blue States and urban areas means that he could be defeated for re-election this November even while winning the popular vote. What few seem to have seriously considered so far is how daunting the present shape of the political battlefield actually is for the President on a state-by-state level, and what that means when it comes to using national tracking polls as a metric to guess who would win a Presidential election held on any given day. If you look closely enough at the numbers, it becomes clear that it is both mathematically and practically possible for the right Republican candidate to assemble a majority in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote by as much as 5%.

Let's travel back in time to 2008. Obama won the popular vote with a margin of 7.27%. He won the Electoral College 365-173. In the intervening time, the post-2010 reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives means that, if the popular vote in 2012 were to be exactly the same, the electoral vote would instead by 359-179 thanks to population shifts over the last decade from Obama states to Republican ones.

In 2008, Obama won the popular vote by about nine and a half million votes. However, roughly 7.2 million of that margin came from huge wins in California, New York, and Illinois — states that he's going to win in pretty much any imaginable scenario. His massive margins in these states distorts the results of national polling by giving Obama a massive stash of surplus voters (equal to about 5.3% of the vote in 2008) who cannot shift a single Electoral Vote. If, instead of looking at the national vote, you look at the margins in swing states it becomes clear that the 2008 result was actually much closer than it looks at first glance.

I have an application on my iPad called the Electoral College. It allows me to play “what if” scenarios on a state by state basis.

I began by using Larry Sabato’s map of how the state by state results would look if the election were held today. Using Sabato’s prediction I come up with 181 electoral votes for the Republican candidate with 13 undecided or swing states. Now let’s look at some of those swing states based on the 2008 results.

A swing of 7,089 votes in North Carolina gives the Republican 196.

118,225 voters in Florida would give that state to the GOP, putting the count at 225. This would be very possible with Marco Rubio on the ticket

It would take only 131,112 votes to give Ohio to the Republicans, putting us at 243 for the Republican

17,264 Virginians makes it 256 for the GOP.

73,281 votes would bring Iowa into the GOP Column and increase the Electoral vote to 262

Missouri was a close call in 2008 with McCain winning by a hair’s breadth margin at 49% to 49%. The “show me state’ should go Republican based on the results of the 2010 congressional election and bring the GOP’s total to 272 enough to elect the GOP candidate.

McCain lost big in New Mexico 57%-42%), but with Susanna Martinez in the governor’s seat she may be able to turn this around and deliver 5 additional votes for the Republican.

Nevada was another big loser for McCain in 2008, but with a Republican guvnor, high unemployment, and its large amount of foreclosures another 6 votes could fall in the GOP column.

These last two states would be good, but are problematic due to the strong Hispanic vote in NM and the influence of SEIU in Nevada.

The encouraging news is that Obama will not have ACORN and others useful idiots working for him this time and he has a record to run on.

In this scenario, by the way, Obama would win with about 8.5 million more votes than the Republican nominee, giving him a victory in the popular vote of 6.57%.

Now, obviously, such a perfectly effective distribution of votes for the Republicans is unlikely even if it is mathematically possible. However, the increasing gap between the deepest of the Blue States and the Red States — Obama is actually polling better in California now than he was in 2008 — makes national polling increasingly irrelevant in a Presidential Election.

In fact, if we look at recent polling in swing states such as Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, and Pennsylvania — most of which show the President either trailing Republican challengers or ahead but with anemic numbers in the low to mid-40's — and contrast it with national polling showing Obama mostly in the lead in the mid to high 40's it becomes hard to reach any other conclusion than that the result of an election held today would be an election where Obama wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College.

The big and unasked question, as I see it, is how Obama and his supporters would react to such a defeat. If the President wins the popular vote while losing the Electoral College, will he accept the result and step aside or will he allow his supporters to attempt some sort of extra-Constitutional effort to perpetuate him in office?

I do not mean to suggest that Obama has the ability to install himself as some kind of dictator. I have complete confidence that the United States Military would, rightfully and constitutionally, refuse any such orders. Instead what I am suggesting is that, in the aftermath of a loss where he carried the popular vote, Obama's supporters would take to the streets in an effort to overturn the results via some kind of "people power" movement such as we have seen overseas in Egypt, the Ukraine, and elsewhere in recent years with the aim of either intimidating some electors into changing (or not casting) their votes or forcing the Republican candidate to concede the Presidency.

The 2012 election will be unlike any election we have since 1860, and we know what resulted from that one. I would not put anything past the committed and radical left. The Occupy movement has demonstrated that and they would get plenty of help from the media.