Mother Schlafly wants YOU to choose the workshops for her wingnut conference

That conference is in the tony suburb of Frontenac, not far from where I live (less tony suburb...)

Have any of you heard Janet Folger Porter's voice when she's been on Mike Signorile's show? She sounds like Jodie Foster!!
Maybe she'll show up at Attitudes, Novak's or Nancy's Place that weekend...

Is it just me or does that man look like he's holding an automatic rifle?

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon,  and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote...  

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.  

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.

In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.

There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution.  The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers.  The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.  

As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified  in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.  

All conquests begin with a betrayal.  

"Oh, I thought you meant a specific plan. With maps and stuff." -Buffy

Janey Folger was part of these festivities of fascism and wet dreams of totalitarian, theocratic rule of every segment of American society. It looks like she's trying to keep the flames of Kennedy's dream alive.

Here's hoping that some anti-hate protesters like Soulforce get out there and show the bigots what real Christianity's like!

Listen to "TransTalk" every Thursday at 4-5pm ET on http://www.falconradio.org