How to Take Back America Conference Schedule

*sigh* After reading about the upcoming Take Back America Conference and Michelle Bachmann’s appearance,  I had to return for another post.  I can understand now why millions of illegal immigrants no longer want to become US citizens.  The US has been lost according to these harbingers of moral decrepitude.

Here are excerpts from the schedule:

How to counter the homosexual extremist movement

How to deal with supremacist judges

How to stop socialism in health care

How to activate your church

How to deal with vote fraud, the Census, and ACORN

How to defend America vs. missile attack

How to understand Islam

How to defend traditional marriage and DOMA

How to defeat Con Con, National Popular Vote, ERA

How to recognize living under Nazis & Communists

How to stop feminist and gay attacks on the military

It is nice to know that our national security can be developed in a work shop for lay people and all of us will be protected from missile attack soon.

However, the last two are simply  beyond rational thought.

 

6 Responses to An Indescribable “How To” Conference

  1. mvymvy says:

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    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 Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 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.com

  2. Cari says:

    Well, I’m sure that if people put a referendum on the ballot saying that the federal government had to pay each family $10,000 every year, people would vote for that too. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea in the whole scheme of things.

    We are trending toward more nationalistic response to issues, primarily (imho) due the increased mobility possible for citizens today. How many people do you know who live in only one state throughout their lifetimes? We don’t identify ourselves as citizens of Iowa or Mississippi or Nevada. We are citizens of the USofA.

    Personally, I think we need states to govern locally. E.g. I think it’s okay for the laws in GA to be different than those in ID. Frankly I’m not sure how I feel about a national popular vote. I bet the folks in NV and ID and AK aren’t too thrilled to actually lose representation in selection of the President. One person-one vote sounds good, but I’m not sure it’s in the best interests of each state (and thus the folks within each state) to go this way.

    • Locke says:

      Well, I’m sure that if people put a referendum on the ballot saying that the federal government had to pay each family $10,000 every year, people would vote for that too.

      Well that’s exactly what the stimulus bill did. Except without the referendum and in fact, by most accounts, actually counter to what the majority of Americans wanted. And by giving $10,000 to every American family you meant taking $10,000. 🙂

  3. leonel says:

    Cool! Gay people are covered in three, maybe four of these agenda items. We must be some pretty powerful people to demand such level of attention. 😉

    • PartiallyBlue says:

      I have read that the character of a man can often be measured by the stature of his enemies. I am not sure that it applies in this instance but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

  4. leonel says:

    I’m not sure how to take that.. 😉 At any rate, I just find it interesting that most of what appears in that schedule appears to be “how to deal with people you don’t like or agree with.” I do agree with your take on how some of that schedule defies rational thought. Thanks! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *