The United States government has, for years, put a premium on the act of voting. The idea is, the more people voting, the better. Are you getting your license renewed? Apply for a voters registration! Are you applying for Food Stamps? Go ahead and register to vote! This idea, however, goes completely against the grain of trying to maintain a responsible government. Our Founding Fathers believed in the idea of “quality of vote” versus “quantity of vote,” which is the mantra we have today.

We all know that in the early days of our republic, an entire gender (females) and ethnic group (Blacks) were not allowed to vote. What most of us are not taught, however is that the vast majority of the population (regardless of race) was not allowed to vote in those early years. Voting was largely determined by states and virtually all of them had property ownership requirements that excluded, by many estimates, as much as 90 percent of the population. The discrimination practiced by the early leaders was not nearly as inclined toward race, as it was making sure that those who participate had a vested interest in the process. Those with property had to pay taxes directly, giving them (in the eyes of the early leaders) a right to participate in the process.

The classical economist John Stuart Mill argued that, if any person was receiving money from the government, they should be prohibited from voting until they were financially free from any assistance. This idea would not be merely welfare recipients, but corporate “fat cats” getting subsidies from Uncle Sam. Mill argued that there was no way to maintain a small and reasonable government if people could vote benefits for themselves. It was similar to serving on the board of an organization and being allowed to vote on something that directly benefits you. That would be bad form and everyone would expect you to “abstain.” “Abstain” we all should do if we are eating at the trough.

Unfortunately, that was then, and this is now. Such a proposal would not be politically palpable. What if there was a third way beyond the “anyone with a pulse can vote” mentality pervasive today and the elitist position found earlier in our nation’s history? It is against the law for candidates to campaign for office within a certain distance of voting locations. That is why, when you walk up, you are bombarded with people offering you flyers up to an invisible line. Yet, the single most important information — party affiliation — is actually seen on your ballots. Worse still, we allow people to vote “straight ticket,” requiring absolutely no thought at all.

To restore integrity in the ballot box, we should remove party affiliation from every ballot entirely and from voting locations. This will require every person who goes in to vote to know exactly for whom they are voting and why. They should not be provided a “cheat sheet” in the form of the ballot for the most important test they take for liberty each election cycle. Those who cry “foul” will be implying their followers cannot read or lack the faculties to make such decisions. What an insult to their constituents. Without party identification, our elections will become a sober task in maintaining our liberty and not a celebration of ignorance. Will we have fewer voters? Most definitely, but we will have more thoughtful voters.

The BBC posted a story today on Russia using it’s “muscle” to influence our weak-willed Foreign Service apparatus by demanding that America and the West do not pressure Iran over nuclear arms, citing that such pressure could be seen as counter-productive.  Excuse me, I need to laugh for a moment.

…

Ah, there, much better!  Russia is trying to throw it’s weight around like an 800-pound gorilla in an ant farm, though, amusingly enough, the ants (Georgia, in particular, but even Ukraine and the Baltics) are holding their ground.  It should be plainly obvious to anyone watching the situation that SOS Clinton and the POTUS are utterly unmatched against two devils in the forms of Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvyedev, and an goon in Clinton’s counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.  It should also be obvious that Russian foreign policy is such that it must keeo America’s enemies supplied with the tools to one day attack us.  That the U.S. has to take any lip from a massive patch of ice who can’t have children (or are too drunk or drugged up to bother to), who have delusions of greatness when most of the country is rusting into oblivion except for those few who managed to game the system (former KGB apparatchiks, nouveau-riche/mafiosi-types) is a bit shameful, if not scandalous.

For those of you who have an interest in keeping an eye on the Russian Bear, check out La Russophobe, whose editor, Kim Zigfeld, excoriates the current Russian administration on their shenanigans.

It is no surprise to anyone that Rush Limbaugh is a die hard conservative. His on air assault of liberal policies are notorious to the Left. But Mr. Limbaugh, aka “the Maha Rushie” of conservative talk radio, is an avid NFL enthusiast with a lot of dough to spend.

Rush Limbaugh, in my opinion, is a shoe in to be a part owner of the woeful St. Louis Rams franchise. Limbaugh, along with St. Louis Blues hockey team owner David Checketts, are in a partnership vying for the team. Limbaugh has the money to purchase the team, and many of the owners in the NFL would welcome him to the club. However, that is not saying that his bid will and has not been met with much criticism, especially from Al Sharpton and head of the NFL Players Association.

Sharpton said in a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell that Limbaugh is “anti-NFL” and he asked for a meeting with Goodell, in which they could discuss the “myriad of reasons as to why (Limbaugh) should not be given an opportunity” to purchase the team. Also, DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFLPA, has stated publicly that the NFL should block the possible purchase of the Rams by Checketts and Limbaugh, because division and hatred are not a part of the NFL mantra.

Gentlemen, I have one thing to say to you: butt out. First of all, this is America, land of the free and home of the brave. Everyone and anyone that has the desire, the drive and the monetary funding can do what they want. Our country was built upon success. If Rush Limbaugh has the money(which he is swimming in) and the passion to purchase a team and make it great and at the same time profit from its success, so be it. The vast majority of the NFL owners are contributors and hold fundraisers for GOP candidates. Alex Spanos, current owner of the San Diego Chargers, Houston Texans owner Robert McNair, and New York Jets owner Robert Johnson are just a few of the owners that have donated money to conservative candidates. Oh, and let’s not forget NFL coaches that have donated money, as well.

Secondly, do we really want to talk about how Rush is politically divisive and bad for the league? Let’s go back to the end of the Super Bowl this year. Pittsburgh owner Dan Rooney, after receiving the Lombardi trophy, the Holy Grail of the NFL, says he would “first and foremost would like to thank President Obama”. Excuse me, but that right there is not only politically charged( he received an ambassadorship to Ireland), but that is a blatant slap in the face of not only the players and coaches, but every single Steelers fan.

Finally, it’s not a black or white issue. It’s a green issue. Rush and co-owner Checketts are in this investment to profit, just like any other successful business owner. When the team is successful, the fans feel successful. And they will come to games to see their favorite players perform, it won’t matter to them who is sitting in the owners’ booth. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who are “race pimps” in this story, are doing nothing but trying to instigate conflict and racial tensions. Stephen A. Smith said it best in an interview on CNN when asked about black football players not playing for the Rams if Rush becomes part owner:

“Those black ball players that are saying this are lying through their stinkin’ teeth. They’re walking hypocrites. You are telling me that if I am a black football player and Rush Limbaugh is the owner of the St. Louis Rams and the New York Jets offer me $10 million, and the Rams offer me $20 million, I’m gonna have a problem with that? Please! They’re lying!”

When asked about the Donovan McNabb comment that Limbaugh made in 2003, where he said “the media desires that a black quarterback do well”, Smith said:

“It did cause a lot of controversy, and Limbaugh did receive a lot of criticism and was unceremoniously fired, but the reality is that it does not mean that he should not own an NFL team. If he has the dollars, he should be able to do it.”

Stephen A Smith hit the nail on the head. Limbaugh has the money. He has the desire. And if he wants to, he will be part owner of the St. Louis Rams. And Al and Jesse and the race baiters that want to stir the pot, I say this: Money talks, and your BS will walk right out the door and into St. Louis, if the price is right.

On tonight’s episode, I had the opportunity to talk with the Rev. Isaac Hayes, Republican candidate for the 2nd Congressional District in Illinois. He is set to challenge Jesse Jackson Jr. Also, we talked Obama going after Fox News and more! Enjoy!

 

 October 12th: Rev Isaac Hayes [118:38m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

In a time when prayer and God and Christianity are coming under ruthless attacks by the Left and the ACLU, this garbage is being thrown into the political arena: Atheists now complaining to a federal judge that “public prayers” make them sick!. How relentlessly stupid and ridiculous have these people become. Since when is it reprehensible for someone to throw a “Hail Mary” to the Big Guy upstairs and have someone who does not believe in a higher divinity not go into convulsions?

One of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit said,

“[W]hen Chief Justice Roberts asked the President to say, ‘So help me God,’ I felt threatened and sick to my stomach.” Another plaintiff stated in court documents, “As I watched this inauguration, I cringed with disgust as I witnessed this special secular event again being poisoned with sectarian religious nonsense.”

My question is this: Is the fact they are getting sick because these are Christians that are praying to the Almighty? What if were a Muslim group prayer? A Hindu prayer? Or what about if a Satanic cult was going about, spreading the word of Satan in a public park? Would that not be considered offensive?

I never quite understood why some of these minority groups seem to have to get special treatment, because they are “offended”. I understand that they are protected by the First Amendment about freedom of religion. But those that pray in public, including the swearing in of the POTUS, have that same right, as protected under that same document.

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute summed it up best:

“The First Amendment cannot be divorced from common sense. While atheists, humanists and freethinkers are a tiny minority in America, they are free to express and practice their lack of faith as they please. That does not mean, however, that the vast majority of God-fearing citizens and public officials must be silenced in order to appease them.”

There are some that are obviously not confident in their beliefs, values and morals, to the point of having to force others to see things their way. Where is the tolerance that so many are talking about? The road goes both ways!