Monday Brief
Constitution Day 2012
The Foundation
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." --preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America
Constitution Day 2012
The U.S. ConstitutionToday, Sept. 17, 2012, marks the 225th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution at the Philadelphia (Constitution) Convention in 1787. The best way to honor the day might be to read it. It's up to "We the People" to hold our elected representatives accountable for failing to honor their oaths.
Mark Alexander has an extensive archive of columns on the Constitution as it relates to various subjects over the years. Don't miss it!
Today is also The Patriot Post's 16th anniversary. Thanks to our readers -- and our financial supporters -- for making what we do possible!
Essential Liberty
"Monday, Sept. 17, marks the 225th anniversary of the signing of the nation's second great founding document, the Constitution that provides Americans with limited government. ... The Constitution was drafted more than 11 years after the Declaration. The United States had won independence but was struggling under the weak Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers wanted to draft a document that would provide an effective but carefully limited federal government. Through a series of compromises, they did just that. They designed three branches of government -- legislative, executive and judicial -- that would check each other. If one tried to usurp too much power, the others would have an interest in bringing it back into line. Just as competition brings down prices in economics, competition would tend to keep any particular branch of government from acquiring too much power. ... The Constitution has held up well for more than two centuries, with only occasional modifications (the 27 amendments) through the years. Of course, people used to be a bit more serious about the idea that the Constitution said what it meant and meant what it said. Any 21st-century celebration of the Constitution should take note that the country is no longer keeping faith with its constitutional principles. Today, most 'laws' actually are rules and regulations enacted by bureaucrats in government agencies, not statutes passed by elected lawmakers. Even when Congress does pass legislation, such as the Dodd-Frank financial reform law or Obamacare, lawmakers leave many blanks and expect rule-makers to fill them in. That means the bureaucracy, peopled with federal 'experts,' essentially exists as an unelected fourth branch of government. ... Our constitutional framework of limited government requires a president who will actively use his granted powers but also recognize the strict limits on those powers. After the Constitution was complete, Benjamin Franklin noted that it made the country 'a republic, if you can keep it.' This Constitution Day, let's honor the framers and respect their work by changing America's course -- and returning to our constitutional roots." --Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner
Read Heritage's 10 Steps to Save the Constitution.
Insight
"I want to make one thing clear. This war against our constitution is not being fought way off in Madagascar or in Mandalay. It is being fought here -- in our schools, our colleges, our churches, our women's clubs. It is being fought with our money." --Senator William Jenner (1908-1985)
Government
"Constitutionally and by precedent, the House of Representatives has the exclusive prerogative to originate bills to appropriate money, as well as to raise revenues. ... No matter how Obama's presidency is viewed, if we buy into the notion that it's he whose spending binge is crippling our nation through massive debt and deficits, we will naturally focus our attention on the White House. The fact of the matter is that Washington has been on a spending binge no matter who has occupied the White House. In 1970, federal spending was $926 billion. Today it's $3.8 trillion. In inflation-adjusted dollars that's about a 300 percent increase. Believing that presidents have taxing and spending powers leaves Congress less politically accountable for our deepening economic quagmire. Of course, if you're a congressman, not being held accountable is what you want. ... Most members of our Republican-controlled House of Representatives say they're against Obamacare. If they really were, they surely would attach a legislative rider or some other legislative device to the Department of Health and Human Services' appropriation bill to ban spending any money on Obamacare; they have the power to. But they don't have the political courage to do so, and their lives are made easier by the pretense that it's the president controlling the spending. And we fall for it." --economist Walter E. Williams
The Gipper
"It's time we stopped looking backward at how we got here. ... We must reach out and appeal to the patriotic and fundamental ideals of average Americans who do not consider themselves 'movement' people, but who respond to the same American ideals that we do." --Ronald Reagan
Opinion in Brief
"An incendiary video about the prophet Muhammad, 'Innocence of Muslims,' was blamed for the mob attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt (and later, Yemen). ... One of the things we've learned all too well is that the 'Muslim street' -- and often Muslim elites -- have a near-limitless capacity to take offense at slights to their religion, honor, history or feelings. ... Are we really going to hold what we can say or do in our own country hostage to the passions of foreign lynch mobs? If your answer is some of form of 'yes,' than you might want to explain why U.S. citizens aren't justified in attacking Egyptian or Libyan embassies here in America. After all, I get pretty mad when I see goons burning the American flag, and I become downright livid when a U.S. ambassador is murdered. Maybe me and some of my like-minded friends should burn down some embassies here in Washington, D.C., or maybe a consulate in New York City? Of course we shouldn't do that. To argue that Americans shouldn't resort to mayhem, while suggesting it's understandable when Muslims do, is to create a double standard that either renders Muslims unaccountable savages ... or casts Americans as somehow less passionate about what we hold dear, be it our flag, our diplomats or our religions." --columnist Jonah Goldberg
For the Record
"One of the ways of understanding the strange nonchalant response of the administration to prior warnings of trouble in the Arab Spring countries, and its contextualization of the violence on the anniversary of 9/11, is its belief that it is somehow separated from the object of the violence. Raging crowds and Islamic wrath could not possibly be connected to the enlightened Obama administration or, more generally to a U.S. that has been 'reset' on his watch -- given the three years of laborious Muslim outreach and the long-ago departure of George Bush. So we are to think away all those burning flags, stormed consulates, and dead Americans, and instead remember that the violence 'is a response,' a sort of cry of the heart against a couple of America-residing video makers -- and has nothing much to do with any anger at well-meaning Americans per se. Apparently no one in charge seems to grasp that this latest video pretext is simply yet another tool, in a long line of many, for premodern Islamists to manipulate and galvanize their fury against the United States, whose success and power obsess them no end -- no matter what we do or who happens to be in the White House, soaring Cairo speech and 'leading from behind' or not." --historian Victor Davis Hanson

Political Futures
"In 1980, Governor Ronald Reagan won the sole debate with incumbent President Jimmy Carter -- and won the election a week later. The media won't let that happen again. And so President Barack Obama will 'win' next month's debates -- not because he is a better debater than Governor Mitt Romney, but because of media bias. ... Obama's favorite debating trick is to demand more time when an opponent makes a point at his expense -- conveying, at the same time, that his opponent has done something wrong that requires redress. ... Obama's tactics reflect a strategic understanding of how debates work that Republicans have not mastered yet. Obama does not come to debates to argue with his opponent, but to deliver a pre-packaged message. That technique is commonly taught to left-wing pundits by Media Matters for America, and is best exemplified in the appearances of such surrogates as Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. ... In sum, Romney will have to do far more than simply outperform Obama to use the debates as a springboard. He would do well to look elsewhere for a late bounce." --columnist Joel B. Pollak
Re: The Left
"Although the big word on the left is 'compassion,' the big agenda on the left is dependency. The more people who are dependent on government handouts, the more votes the left can depend on for an ever-expanding welfare state. Optimistic Republicans who say that widespread unemployment and record numbers of people on food stamps hurt President Obama's reelection chances are overlooking the fact that people who are dependent on government are more likely to vote for politicians who are giving them handouts. President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that, back during the Great Depression of the 1930s. He was reelected in a landslide after his first term, during which unemployment was in double digits every single month, and in some months was over 20 percent. The time is long overdue for optimistic Republicans to understand what FDR understood long ago, and what Barack Obama clearly understands today. Dependency pays off in votes -- unless somebody alerts the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill." --economist Thomas Sowell
Reader Comments
"Thank you, Mark, that we have at least one credible source telling the truth about BO's BS and our nation's plight. This administration's apology for a video rather than immediate outrage at the murder of four Americans is despicable." --GB in Dunwoody, Georgia
"I have never been one to panic over the state of our country, because I always knew that we could fix it when it was broken. But how does a country defend itself when the man in the White House is determined to ruin it even further? The crisis overseas and the riots that are taking place are so important to our security, and BO couldn't even muster up any anger towards the killing of our American people, or the burning of our flag. We need strong leadership, and someone who can stand up to the rest of the world and keep America as the strongest, most united country in the world." --Patricia in D'Hanis, Texas
"Ambassador Christopher Stevens did a great deal to support and help the Libyan rebels against Moammar Gadhafi, yet this is his payback. In the real world no good deed goes unpunished. I am of the opinion that the best way to handle these mentally challenged people and their so-called Religion of Peace™ adherents is to immediately cut off all monies from the U.S. to them, remove all the diplomats and allow them to sink back into the abyss of the Dark Ages from whence they come." --Jiggs in Millen, Georgia
"Yes, unfortunately Friday's Digest laid out similarities to Obama and Carter, but Carter lost his attempt at re-election. Obama has been rising in the polls and is now at 7 points above Romney. Unfortunately, Romney has none of Ronald Regan's persuasive characteristics. America is now too dependent on the government for hand-outs, so a win for Obama despite his dismal records both on the economy and foreign policy is imminent." --FED Up in Philly
"Stop believing the polls of the delusional left. They are skewing the numbers and lying to you." --wjm in Colorado
"This Chicago teacher strike makes me very remorseful that I didn't complete my teacher training so that I could assist the kids that are suffering from the greedy teachers of Chicago. They should be ashamed of themselves for the job they have been doing." --Ann in Penrose, North Carolina
The Last Word
"When politicians hear us complain about our problems, they try to solve them. Just look at our massive, bloated government and our ginormous national debt -- that was all built by complaining. People whined about stuff, and some politicians overheard and were like, 'I bet I can solve this problem and be super popular! And I know the perfect solution: a new massive bureaucracy that costs billions of dollars!' And, of course, the only thing a massive government bureaucracy has ever solved is the problem of Americans having too much time and money. Having politicians fix problems is like having a three-year-old fix your computer with a hammer. It's best to not get them involved at all. ... That's why one of the most important American values that should be ingrained in us is that we solve things ourselves and never, ever complain when government can hear us -- that's the equivalent of feeding a Mogwai after midnight. The only way we'll get a smaller government and get out of debt is by convincing the government that we don't need its constant help. If you lose your job, your house burns down, and you're surrounded by angry bears, and the government asks, 'Do you need help?' you should answer, 'Oh no. Minor setback. I'm fine. I saw some airports that need renaming, though. Why don't you get on that?'" --humorist Frank J. Fleming
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
77 Comments
wjm in Colorado
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Every time a law or regulation is passed, a little more freedom is taken away. I would love to see a new congress spend the entire next term dismantling the government that has now ceased being representative, but is tyranical.
Diane in Tx
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Robert A. Heinlein once wrote of a two house system that had one house passing laws with a 2/3 majority, ande the other house repealing laws with a 1/3 minority.. He said a law that was liked by 2/3 of the reps was probably popular enough to stand, and one hated by more than a 1/3 was probably a bad laws to begin with.. This is from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." He did say (in the book) that people thought is was too strange an idea to adopt, but it seems like a good idea to me.
RADDAD in atlanta
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:30 AM
OBamacare funding – Walter Williams stated – HoR should just stop the funding. It is my understanding that the Obama controlled govt (all branches) passed Obamacare with $ 900 B in funding, taken from Medicare.
Obamacare needs to be dismantled in the same way it was constructed, complete and in the dark. RADDAD
Bobby in Jacksonville, NC
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM
enough of: B ad O dor. It's time for some: R & R
Jane in Florida
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Once again, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE! THAT WILL GET US BACK TO OUR CONSTITUTION AND BACK ON THE ROAD THAT OUR FOREFATHERS WANTED US TO BE ON.
GK in California
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:48 AM
The reality of political life is that social change will never come from within either of the two major political parties. Throughout our nation's history significant social change such as abolition, prohibition, women's suffrage, repeal of prohibition, the advent of the welfare state, the civil rights movement, drug prohibition, leaving Vietnam and ending military conscription all came about as a result of both major political parties reacting to popular opinion, not as a result of some moral resolve on the part of politicians.
Truth be told, politicians are followers not leaders. Political activists and Third Party members are the leaders. The Democratic and Republican parties are right for those who are comfortable with the status quo – a relentless movement toward bigger government and more federal involvement in personal lives.
If we want our politicians to take us in a different direction, we voters must lead. We do this with our activism and Third Party affiliation. John Adams said it best; always vote on principle and your vote will never be lost – no matter who happens to win the White House.
wjm in Colorado
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM
You can throw your vote away in the failed state of California, but I will work within our current two party system, with the TEA party endorsed candidates in the Republican Party who would follow the Constitution envisioned by our Founders, and vote against the party of Marx (Democrats). We have a choice between freedom and tyranny, of being slaves to a new vision of government by treasonous marxists or returning to the rule of law. Go ahead an feel good about throwing away your vote, as California will go for tyranny and treason anyway.
GK in California
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM
If I thought Romney had a chance at Cal's 55 electoral votes I’d vote for the Republican in this election, too. I’d do the same if I lived in Colorado. But he doesn’t stand a chance in Cal. – so I’ll make a statement with my vote by pulling the lever for Libertarian Gary Johnson. I don’t consider that a “wasted” vote.
I’ll be voting to re-elect Rep. Issa – a good man – and any reasonably conservative person who is running against Sen Feinstein.
Richard Edgemon in Fort Smith
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM
I have heard several say that Romney doesn't have a chance in this or that state.Many more saying they won't vote because of Romney not having a chance. I feel we are in dire straits and HAVE TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY. By not voting we are allowing the incumbent to waltz right in.In other words it's o.k. It is not o.k. Our predecessors fought to make this country what it is.We CANNOT shrug our shoulders and hope to have any better results with a second term. I fully believe America will never be the same,but for our children and grandchildrens' sake let us fight for what is ours !!! Bought with blood of Patriots !!!!
GK in California
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 3:09 PM
This discussion seems to have come full circle, back to my original post.
Gordon Holmes in Ocala, FL
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Long live the constitution and down with those that dishonor it and refuse to keep the oaths of office they gave when they wre instsalled in office. Our constitution has only required 27 changes (amendments in 225 years. I think it now needs a 28th to keep us in line. That 28th should require congress to accept Social security and Medicare and obey all of the laws of the land.
MNIce in Minnesota
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 3:50 PM
NO! Social Security and Medicare are part of the unconstitutional Central Welfare State! We do not need a Constitutional Amendment to keep us in line; we need an amendment to keep the Federal government in line!
Congress routinely disobeys the Constitution by enacting laws for which it has no authority. The "equal justice" clause of the 14th Amendment already is supposed to do what you propose. It is up to the voters to make them comply.
We do need some help from the courts. My proposal: 1. The power of Congress to levy and collect taxes to provide for the General Welfare of the United States shall not be construed to extend beyond providing for the general and administrative expenses of the Congress, the Executive and Judiciary branches defined within this Constitution. The power of Congress to regulate commerce between the several states shall not extend beyond the actual transfer of goods, services or monies across the borders of the states; it shall not extend to purported antecedents or consequences of such commerce..
All Executive regulations must be specifically derived from and pertain to legislation duly passed by Congress, and must be approved by both Houses of Congress prior to taking effect. No regulation made prior to the ratification of this amendment shall remain in effect unless it has been approved by Congress in compliance with this amendment.
No statute of the United States shall be in effect for a period greater than seven years without review and renewal by Congress. Statutes in existence at the time of the ratification of this amendment shall expire seven years from the date of ratification unless reviewed and renewed.
A transgression of the Constitution being a transgression upon the rights of all of the people, any citizen eligible to vote in any of the United States or its territories may bring suit in the Federal Courts for injunctive relief of a general violation of the Constitution of the United States where no specific harm to an individual can be established.
The first two sections of this amendment are not actual changes to the Constitution; they are clarifications intended to prohibit some of the more egregious abuses of power by Congress and the President. Some may argue the regulatory review requirement is a change, but it ensures that legislation remains firmly in the hands of Congress and prevents the Executive from usurping or unlawfully accepting legislative authority from Congress.
MNIce in Minnesota
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 3:56 PM
It looks like my section numbering was altered by some sort of auto-list operation. I originally composed this with sections 1-4, not a repeated 1. Since we don't have the ability to edit our posts after clicking the "Submit Comment" button, we'll just have to be very careful about using number lists.
Hamilton in IL
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 5:45 PM
MnIce,
Excellent point!
This is an excellent example of sliding down the slippery slope. Gordon Holmes has fallen into the trap of accepting a faulty premise before making his argument. As you pointed out, the faulty premise is that Social Security and Medicare are legitimate programs under the Constitution.
So forcing our corrupt legislators to be victimized by two illegitimate programs that they created for us peons, doesn't help us peons and doesn't solve the original offense against the Constitution, and by extention, against the People.
Gordon - no offense! This is an object lesson for us all. Your aggravated input is valuable.
Son of Liberty in Colorado
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM
The word has to get out to all Americans - the Constitution is in jeopardy of being "indefinitely suspended" if he retains the office of POTUS. He's doing his level best to gut it now! Look for the instiution of complete Gun Control and further muzzling of the 1st Amendment. He will stop importation of Powder that reloaders get from their local sporting gun shop. Stop internet purchases of ammo. Get the UN firmly in charge of confiscating our firearms.
You will probably run into many naysayers out there, but they are just "whistling past the graveyard". They have drunk the Kool Aid and bought into the big lie. Its coming if we don't get him out in November. So you'd best be finding a place to secure your stuff or be ready to do a Concord and Lexington.
Richard Edgemon in Fort Smith
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM
You are absolutely correct. Sadly our government is in complete harmony in finishing the downfall of our nation. Seeing that house Republicans have signed on to the huge tax increase for American citizens??? We voted these people in to work for us,protect out interests.HMMMMMMM. Maybe it's time to forcefully take them out of office.
MNIce in Minnesota
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 4:01 PM
No, the House Republicans have NOT signed on to the tax increase; they passed a bill to stop them completely. The Senate Democrats are refusing to consider it; they are demanding it permit at least part of the tax increase. Tell the truth!
Richard Canceni in Arlington, TX
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:57 AM
After 225 yrs. of success for all of its people, the Constitution is again under assault by Progressive Ideologues. They and their current Dictator-in-chief believe they know better than our Founding Fathers and the proof of time. Their arrogant belief is that they know what is best for the USA and its citizens.
Their history is one of fumbling and bumbling efforts leading to failure and misery for people on the road to that failure. Why do people deny the reality of their own experiences and believe the unreality of the lies these Progressives spew forth? Nowhere and at no time has there ever been a system of government that has been as successful as has the USA and its Constitution. Remember in November that the Constitution is under siege and only a none Obama and Non Obama vote can begin the process of restoration.
Let's cast these seditionists from our government and return Freedom to all.
Hamilton in IL
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Richard,
Not to say that you're wrong because you're right, that the Liberal Progressives think they know better what's good for America.
But in reality, who, or what party, or what individual might know better what's good for us, IS IRRELEVANT!
The whole purpose of our Constitutional Republic is to make sure that the People chart their own course, for better or for worse. If the Founders thought there was a know-it-all that could guide us always, they would have come up with a monarchy for us, or some other type of government in which power and authority was forever entrusted to one person, or one elite group of persons.
Arguably our greatest president, even George Washington, wasn't made King, even though there were, believe it or not, some people at that time who wanted him to be King. Even during the Founders' time, some people didn't get the concept ... Mr. Washington did.
Craig Kinard in Pasadena, CA
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 3:15 PM
Hamilton in IL: Thank you! Perfectly stated--our Founders believed in INDIVIDUAL liberty, meaning each and every one of us, individually . . . by the way, even Romney makes me nervous when he talks about "creating 12,000,000 new jobs." His job is to clear out the brambles so WE can do that!!!
Hamilton in IL
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 8:28 PM
Craig, You're very welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Elle in California
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:59 AM
What are the rules of the debates? I have never seen them published. Time for a little light on the subject.
Son of Liberty in Colorado
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Rules don't matter to the lefties! Trust me on that one.
KN in Arkansas
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM
"Rules? We ain't got no rules. We don't need no rules! I don't have to follow any stinkin' rules!"
Edd Parker in TN
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 12:03 PM
It has been said "We can't vote ourselves out of this mess." Our problem is more critical than politics, it's spiritual, but we must try, and the first and foremost thing we must do is RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION.
XCpt in the ether
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM
A quote from the President:
“To succeed, the democracy established in our Constitution requires the active participation of its citizenry. Each of us has a responsibility to learn about our Constitution ….
Source: Barack Obama, Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, Constitution Week, 2009, A Proclamation by the President of the United States (Sept. 16, 2009).
The word Democracy does not even exist in the Constitution. The word Republican does (when referring to the type of government being created).
robert fleming in Pinehurst, TX
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Our "so-called" President and his rubber-stamp congress has all but destroyed or eliminated our Constitution. When Obama and the members of congress were sworn in, they took a sacred oath "to preserve and defend the constitution of these United States of America to the best of their ability; so help them God!" That being said, these "officials" need to be impeached and convicted of failure to uphold their oath and the gross neglect of the Constitution and its laws. If the congress cannot police the political government as directed by the Constitution, then maybe it's time for another revolution, armed or otherwise !!!!!
Richard Edgemon in Fort Smith
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM
I would have disagreed even five years ago.I can remember"kooks" who made those kind of statements 20 years ago.We thought they were nuts. Oh, that God would once again smile on America and help us get back on the right path. We are seeing numerous,numerous freedoms struck down on a weekly almost daily basis.We know it's been strengthening and building for many years,but to see it happen. The president is a shame to America,but alas,we must know he is but a pawn being used by powers which sole reason for existence is to annihilate us.
Robert Grant, in SE AZ
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Mr. Fleming, I am not certain of this but the Oath (or affirmation) which is supposed to assure fealty to the Republic and the Constitution has been set aside for civilian employees of our federal government. That comment traced to a newspaper article which stated that the Oath was a mere formality and not "binding". Which is ridiculous! It is binding on military. It is binding on those appearing in Courts. A man's word, and his Oath, should be binding and misfeasance should be dealt with promptly. It is in the military, and usually in the Courts. Why not civilians in government?
Bianka in Texas
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Sometimes, just for a moment, I entertain thoughts of what it would be like to bomb, burn, destroy and murder those in the Libyan and Egyptian embassies here in America...but oh that's right, we don't do that. We send them money...for their economy and for military aid. We are so nice.......
Rifleman in Georgia
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Today, September 17, is the date on which the battle at Antietam Creek, near the town of Sharpsburg, MD, was fought.
It was the bloodiest battle in the history of these United States, fought to settle the issue of whether or not we were to remain A Nation Divided.
What those men determined on that day -- and on the same calendar day in 1787 -- was that We, the People, on November 6, next, will decide if we are to be "forever free."
We are confronted with the spawn of our own ignorance who threatens "to fundamentally transform the most prosperous Nation in the history of the world" -- with our assent, acceptance and passivity.
Rifleman in Georgia
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Obama was elected by 32% of the 54% of registered voters who cast their ballots.
That's 1/3 of 1/2.
Obama was chosen by those people who didn't choose.
Das Fuhrer never received more than 32% of the votes in 1933 Germany.
"Those who do not remember History will be condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana
Diane in Tx
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM
"What experience and history teach is this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it." G. W. F. Hegel And if that's not enough... "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." George Bernard Shaw
Hamilton in IL
Monday, September 17, 2012 at 5:32 PM
Sometimes the raw numbers sting, don't they. And they can't be argued against. Your point is valid and should hit home for us all.
32% of 54% is 17.28%. So please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand this properly, approximately ...
17% of registered voters voted for Obama. 37% of registered voters voted against Obama, and 46% of registered voters stayed home.
My open question now, is whether I should be more angry with the 17% of voters who actually wanted this scoundrel, or as you pointed out, the 46% of voters who didn't vote.
My question for you is whether you think those 46% who didn't care enough to vote would have voted for, or against, Obama, had they shown up. I mean, what type of registered voter doesn't show up for a vote involving a candidate of Obama's lackluster qualifications, who could become our president?