The Real Deal Behind a National Popular Vote (NPV Compact)? Beware!

npv-button

 

NOT the standard around the world!

 

The current signatories to the NPV Compact have two things in common – progressive states and a heavy non-citizen voting population.  If you have not already read:

  1. Are you ill-informed about the electoral college?  Learn why it is important to your freedom!

and

  1. National Popular Vote: Master plan to eliminate states’ rights?

I encourage you to read these first to get the necessary background to a fuller understanding of the subtle and insidious march to a strong centralized national progressive government of the few, by the few, and for the few; and not of the people, by the people, and for the people.

During a decennial census the goal is to count anyone with a pulse, in fact, as many with a pulse as possible.  The plan for the progressive states: grow the population and create voters and electoral votes.

Residence or citizen status is not considered or asked by the census enumerator.  I was the manager for administration at the Marana, AZ census office during the last census and know first hand the overwhelming command from the U.S. Commerce Department to count any and all breathing persons.  Citizen, resident alien, illegal alien – it made no difference.  If they could get a way with it they would count tombstomes of dead people.

california illegal

california illegal drivers

California is making every effort o give non-citizens the ability to vote.

Look to the prime driver of the National Popular Vote Compact effort, California.

Los Angeles County’s massive population drove the 2016 presidential election popular vote.  Los Angeles County combined with five other coastal California counties voted over 70% for Hillary Clinton.  One additional county voted over 80% for Clinton and an additional eight were over 60%.

Los Angeles County has a population of over 10,000,000 with, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), one million illegal immigrants – 10%, yes ten percent.  Keep in mind that very lax California voter registration rules are a mindset in California voting and not a mistake.

California is not alone, as Chicago, Houston, and New York City all have massive populations of illegal immigrants.  DHS estimates that California alone has 2.7 million illegals or 6% of the population.  Illegals bloat the census and thus the electoral vote for that state.  This data is four or five years old.  Where do think we stand now?

Yes, citizens, legal non-citizen residents, and illegal residents are counted in the census to determine Congressional representation and the number of electoral votes for each state.  Do these folks vote?  You tell me.  It is pretty easy to vote in a federal election.

There is a distinct benefit to the progressive NPV Compact states , in fact all states under the NPV, to bloat the population as well as the vote, with non-citizens.

Is proof of citizenship required to register to vote in a Federal election?  NO!  These are the instructions found on the federal registration form, and with only a utility bill you can register and vote for the President of the United States – these NPV states, especially California know this well.

federal-mail-voter-registration0001

Federal Ballot Registration Instructions

Federal Ballot Regfistration Instructions Box 6

 As you can see, the federal registration form even has accommodation for those who cannot provide a social security number or driver’s license number.  I have underlined that section above in the federal voter registration form instructions – take note.

 

2016 pres election outcome by county
2016 Presidential Election results by county
Blue Hillary Clinton – Red Donald Trump

This map reflects the counties won by both Clinton and Trump – red is Trump and blue is Clinton.  The blue counties tend to have a high illegal and progressive population.  Trump wins the counties by 2,626 to 487, and even the media cannot agree on this, as the popular votes numbers are not officially tracked and reported by the federal government.  Only Certificates of Attainment as mentioned in a prior post track any semblance of the popular vote.

 

California 2016 lopsided vote by county

Note the similarity of California’s illegal population (blue) depicted in this chart to the previous counties map.

 

Tyranny of the Majority is the goal of the NPV Compact effort.  Clinton wins the national popular vote by 2.9 million, but without Los Angeles County and New York City providing a popular vote bump to Clinton of 3.2 million, Trump wins the popular vote.  Do we want the tyranny of NYC and LA to drive this nation forward?

This NPV effort is an effort by Californians to use the power of California to literally install their progressive choice as president.  It is as simple as that.

The NPV folks have a slick presentation, but it is not completely accurate.  However, it moves the unaware state legislator to support and even sponsor the NPV Compact Resolution in their state – your state?  Remember these folks need only 105 more electoral votes to take over this nation and make it a progressively run country, by concentrating all power in a central national government – states’ rights be damned.  Remember the states have already lost the Senate thanks to the progressive’s 17 amendment.

The California effort is led by a John Koza, PhD.  He is a heavy contributor to:

  • Federal Democrat candidates
  • State Republican legislative candidates in possible NPV states
  • California progressives driving this effort – why?
  • He funds a paid team of supporters presenting to legislators
  • He offers a very convincing presentation – I attended one

 This is clearly a progressive effort to be stopped!

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE: MASTER PLAN TO ELIMINATE STATES’ RIGHTS?

obama plan

The caption reads: After repeatedly violating the Constitution and going against the will of American citizens, you have to create a new voting base.

There is a strong, slick push for a National Popular Vote.  The Electoral College stands in the way of an all powerful national (central) government.  Now that you have read “ARE YOU ILL-INFORMED ABOUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?” and can now be considered informed, we are ready for this post.

This push continues the progressive effort started with the 17th amendment to tear down the sharing of power and limited government.  The National Popular Vote Compact guarantees the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular, votes from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  They need not receive the majority of votes.  30% of votes can win.

This compact promotes an overwhelming lopsided vote from a few states.  It allows for a state to have a blind eye to voter fraud.  It actually expands a state’s electoral votes!  With the compact if a state can gin up a large enough popular vote to one candidate, then it can count on the electoral votes from other compact states.  As long as one state can move the needle on the popular vote, all the remaining electoral votes from other compact states flow to the popular vote winner, no matter how lopsided.

california illegal

 

The NPV is not a grass roots effort!

 

Yes, I am talking about California, but more on California later.

A key argument of the NPV people, published on their website is “Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. As shown on the map, two-thirds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were ignored.…” http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation.

Well, President Donald Trump blew this argument up in 2016 when he took the democrat firewall states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  His was not a four-state campaign.  In fact he blew up just about all their arguments on that web page.

How does it work:

A state signs the compact and agrees that all that state’s electoral votes go to the winner of the national popular vote, even if that state’s voters voted for the other person.  They have now amassed states totaling 165 electoral votes and need more states totaling 105.  California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington (state) have all signed on and take note these are heavily progressive states.

The NPV Compact has passed at least one House of the legislature of Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Oregon.  Six of these states are progressive states.  Committees in Georgia and Missouri passed the resolution as well.

These passed because the paid NPV people have a slick presentation and key donors out of California sprinkle dollars to Republican campaigns in state races.  Conservative representatives not only voted for the Compact in the Arizona House, but a few other conservatives actually sponsored the legislation.  They fell for the slick presentation.

The NPV people are dangerously close to states signatories totaling 270, and then it is all over – progressives win and the all-powerful national government starts.  Individual states will no longer matter, retail politics will be gone, the races will be based on national ads.  Liberty derived from local state governments will be lost.  Tyranny of the majority will be the rule.

How will a national popular vote work when each state has different rules on early voting, registering to vote, qualifying for the ballot, felon voting, and the timing and triggers for recounts?  Keep in mind that some states have an overwhelming desire to let anyone with a pulse, or maybe no pulse, vote for president, while other states are more concerned about the quality of the voter.

illegals voting

Voter fraud does exist and can be amped up by a state or states to manipulate the popular vote count.  Example: More votes were cast in 2016 in Wayne County, MI, than registered voters.  Details of and examples of voter fraud will be presented in a future posting.

With the National Popular Vote, a minor regional candidate could get 30% of the vote and sneak in with the most votes, if there are more than two candidates.  Keep in mind that there is no official tracking of the popular vote, other than the reporting of electors to the National Archives by the governor on a Certificate of Ascertainment.  These certificates list the winning electors and may list the popular vote for each winning elector.  However, it is submitted as soon as possible when the state result has winners, but there may still be changes to the popular vote when the vote count is concluded.

Yes, now we can talk the big talk, California progressives.  The intended effect of California progressives on the electoral vote and votes of non-citizen residents and illegal residents in the population, culminating in a loss of the sovereign states and establishing an all powerful national government.

This will be in the next post.  It will be eye opening.

illegal bill

ARE YOU ILL-INFORMED ABOUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?   LEARN WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO YOUR FREEDOM!

 

 

394-heathered_gray_aa-z1-t-drink-until-the-electoral-college-makes-sense

Before we go right to why we need it, we need to learn why it exists.  What was and is its purpose?

The term electoral college is not found in the Constitution, which refers to “electors”.  This system provides the states the ultimate in local power for our federation of sovereign states.  These same “united” states had and still have varied issues and challenges among them.  When the founders created our system of government, they wanted a weak central government.  Ask yourself, why would a group of states, a federation if you will, band together for limited common reasons and create a powerful central government?  They didn’t!  They wanted to achieve a purpose and did not want to abdicate their power.

The purpose was to create a federal government with specific and limited power – eighteen enumerated powers (Article 1 – Section 8), with all the remaining governing powers reserved to the states and then codified in the Tenth Amendment: reserved for the states and the people.

Today, there is a movement challenging our electoral system, the progressive movement.  In order to better understand our electoral system, we need to learn about these progressives.

The first progressive era lasted from 1890 to 1920 and during this time the seventeenth amendment was passed and ratified.  This was the really big accomplishment of the progressives, because it removed the combined states’ power in the Senate.  No longer were the states able to send their “ambassadors” to the Washington to steer the federal government.  The states had been electing the executive, the president, and appointing their state’s Senators.  This closely held governing kept the federal government in line so to speak.  Remember that the original intent was that the only house of the federal government that directly represented the people was the House of Representatives.  Since 1913, thanks to those progressives, the Senators are directly elected by the people of their state.  State legislators lost control.

PROGRESSIVES

The domestic policy of the progressives has two main concerns: 1) protect the poor and victims of capitalism; 2) provide non-religious “spiritual” development of citizens, by protecting the environment, using education as personal creativity, and subsidizing and promoting the arts and culture.  Their understanding of democracy means to take power from the locally elected, place absolute power into the hands of a central government, and replace local politicians with “enlightened” bureaucrats.  We the people are nothing more than knuckle draggers.

electoral college

To manage the common interests of the states, the founders created a federation to meet the needs of the member states in areas of commerce, common defense, naturalization, etc.  A national government was specifically not created, where only limited power was ceded to the new federal government.

Plainly put: our country is a federation of sovereign states.  There is a supremacy clause in the Constitution proclaiming that the federal government’s laws are supreme to the state laws, but this only applies to laws falling into the granted enumerated powers.  State power is local power and local power drives freedom and liberty.

Was a national popular vote considered when the Constitution was ratified?  Well, it was not until 1824, that we even tracked popular vote: 36 years and 9 presidential terms into our new government.  Other than incidental reporting to the National Archives, the national popular vote is still not officially tracked.

Our electoral system allows the state legislators to decide how that state’s electoral votes are spent.  Most states now give all their electoral votes to the winner of that state’s popular vote.  The census mostly determines the states’ electoral vote based on the number of apportioned representation in Congress.  The size of the Congressional delegation, plus the two now directly elected senators determines the electoral vote.  Additional, the people of the District of Columbia, since a 1961 amendment, have three electoral votes in presidential elections.

The electoral system did not just happen.  Our founders had an idea of what they wanted and it was the opposite of a monarchy power system.  In fact, our electoral system might even be considered a hybrid of how parliament selects the national leader.  It is amazing how the founders new that a limited federal government, with the executive elected by the states made for strong states and a less potent federal government in domestic affairs, because it effectively divides power, spheres of control, between the federal government and the states.  This electoral system is a key pillar of our federal government in delivering individual liberty.

The lack of a national popular vote appointing the executive is not now, nor has it ever been, unique.  Notably, the British Prime Minister is elected by the British Parliament, and parliamentary governments around the world elect their prime minister/leader – and it is not by popular vote.

The current progressive era on steroids – they don’t go away – started around the economic collapse at the end of the first decade of the new century – circa 2006/2007.   Of course, the progressives never went away, instead they just really came alive in this latest era with Climate Change and the popular vote movement.  We now have an all-out assault on our electoral system.  It is called the National Popular Vote Compact.   More on the National Popular Vote Compact in the next post.

electoral college 1

ARE YOU ILL-INFORMED ABOUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?   LEARN WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO YOUR FREEDOM!

 

 

394-heathered_gray_aa-z1-t-drink-until-the-electoral-college-makes-sense

WELL IT DOES MAKE SENSE – YOU MIGHT NEED TO STOP DRINKING TO FIND OUT   READ AND YOU WILL SEE!

Before we go right to why we need it, we need to learn why it exists.  What was and is its purpose?

The term electoral college is not found in the Constitution, which refers to “electors”.  This system provides the states the ultimate in local power for our federation of sovereign states.  These same “united” states had and still have varied issues and challenges among them.  When the founders created our system of government, they wanted a weak central government.  Ask yourself, why would a group of states, a federation if you will, band together for limited common reasons and create a powerful central government?  They didn’t!  They wanted to achieve a purpose and did not want to abdicate their power.

The purpose was to create a federal government with specific and limited power – eighteen enumerated powers (Article 1 – Section 8), with all the remaining governing powers reserved to the states and then codified in the Tenth Amendment: reserved for the states and the people.

Today, there is a movement challenging our electoral system, the progressive movement.  In order to better understand our electoral system, we need to learn about these progressives.

The first progressive era lasted from 1890 to 1920 and during this time the seventeenth amendment was passed and ratified.  This was the really big accomplishment of the progressives, because it removed the combined states’ power in the Senate.  No longer were the states able to send their “ambassadors” to the Washington to steer the federal government.  The states had been electing the executive, the president, and appointing their state’s Senators.  This closely held governing kept the federal government in line so to speak.  Remember that the original intent was that the only house of the federal government that directly represented the people was the House of Representatives.  Since 1913, thanks to those progressives, the Senators are directly elected by the people of their state.  State legislators lost control.

PROGRESSIVES

YES, TEDDY ROOSEVELT WAS A PROGRESSIVE, UNFORTUNATELY PROGRESSIVE POLICIES WORK AGAINST PROSPERITY.

The domestic policy of the progressives has two main concerns: 1) protect the poor and victims of capitalism; 2) provide non-religious “spiritual” development of citizens, by protecting the environment, using education as personal creativity, and subsidizing and promoting the arts and culture.  Their understanding of democracy means to take power from the locally elected, place absolute power into the hands of a central government, and replace local politicians with “enlightened” bureaucrats.  We the people are nothing more than knuckle draggers.

electoral college

To manage the common interests of the states, the founders created a federation to meet the needs of the member states in areas of commerce, common defense, naturalization, etc.  A national government was specifically not created, where only limited power was ceded to the new federal government.

Plainly put: our country is a federation of sovereign states.  There is a supremacy clause in the Constitution proclaiming that the federal government’s laws are supreme to the state laws, but this only applies to laws falling into the granted enumerated powers.  State power is local power and local power drives freedom and liberty.

Was a national popular vote considered when the Constitution was ratified?  Well, it was not until 1824, that we even tracked popular vote: 36 years and 9 presidential terms into our new government.  Other than incidental reporting to the National Archives, the national popular vote is still not officially tracked.

Our electoral system allows the state legislators to decide how that state’s electoral votes are spent.  Most states now give all their electoral votes to the winner of that state’s popular vote.  The census mostly determines the states’ electoral vote based on the number of apportioned representation in Congress.  The size of the Congressional delegation, plus the two now directly elected senators determines the electoral vote.  Additional, the people of the District of Columbia, since a 1961 amendment, have three electoral votes in presidential elections.

The electoral system did not just happen.  Our founders had an idea of what they wanted and it was the opposite of a monarchy power system.  In fact, our electoral system might even be considered a hybrid of how parliament selects the national leader.  It is amazing how the founders new that a limited federal government, with the executive elected by the states made for strong states and a less potent federal government in domestic affairs, because it effectively divides power, spheres of control, between the federal government and the states.  This electoral system is a key pillar of our federal government in delivering individual liberty.

The lack of a national popular vote appointing the executive is not now, nor has it ever been, unique.  Notably, the British Prime Minister is elected by the British Parliament, and parliamentary governments around the world elect their prime minister/leader – and it is not by popular vote.

The current progressive era on steroids – they don’t go away – started around the economic collapse at the end of the first decade of the new century – circa 2006/2007.   Of course, the progressives never went away, instead they just really came alive in this latest era with Climate Change and the popular vote movement.  We now have an all-out assault on our electoral system.  It is called the National Popular Vote Compact.   More on the National Popular Vote Compact in the next post.

electoral college 1

Which branch of the federal government is the more powerful – Congressional, Executive, or Judicial?

Scotus 2

Well the Constitution is reasonably clear that they are equal.  However, in reviewing the wording of and the Articles affecting each branch, it appears that the Judicial branch was a step-child at the ratification of the Constitution.

In fact, the Constitution only created the supreme Court (supreme is not capitalized in the Constitution) as the Judicial branch.  It left it up to the Congress to create the inferior courts and the rules of the inferior courts.

The term “is it constitutional” only became an issue after Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 rendered an opinion for Marbury v. Madison.  The actual decision is not as important as Marshall’s extrapolation from the Constitution that the supreme Court could declare a law or action of the Congress or Executive Branch to be “unconstitutional”.  From then on, since this opinion was not challenged by the other branches, the Judicial branch had a new tool that arguably made them more powerful than or at least equal to the other two branches.

Once Congress established the inferior courts (district and appellate), the perceived authority of the supreme Court was also, almost by osmosis, applied to these courts as well.  In addition, nowhere is it written in the Constitution that the supreme and inferior Courts are the sole arbiters of what is constitutional.

Now for the “Political Question Doctrine”:

The “political question doctrine” was in play notably in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, again in 1832 with Worchester v. Georgia involving Andrew Jackson and the supreme Court, and numerous times in U.S. history with the most recent collision in 2017 being the Ninth Circuit appellate (inferior) court decision in State of Washington; State of Minnesota, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants.  This question deals with whether the Judiciary has any say in political, and now diplomatic, matters or any matters that transcend the law and the Constitution.

In 1803, the Executive branch complied as part of the matter was law.  In 1832, the Executive branch – President Andrew Jackson, defied the court and continued his actions.   In 2017, the Executive branch is unsuccessfully trying to find accommodation with the court ruling.

In fact, during accommodation, the matter was extended by two district judges, with one even contemplating ordering the President to take an action that is clearly in the political province of the President.  So, I ask.  Is the Judicial branch more important, and more powerful under our Constitution?  We are not even talking supreme Court here, but the inferior courts established by Congress.  Really, have we come this far that our chief political arm is an inferior court?

What to do?  The Executive Branch can follow the action of Andrew Jackson.  Now, I am not arguing the merits of the Jackson matter, rather the authority afforded a president under the Constitution to manage international affairs.  The Constitution does not provide for any authority to the Judicial branch in these matters and is explicit in providing both the Senate and the President such authority.  To put it bluntly, the President should and authoritatively tell the Judicial branch to butt out of international matters.

Yes, I am saying the Executive branch needs to regain and retain the right of being equal and push back against grossly obvious Judicial overreach.  President Trump needs to publicly notify the Judicial branch that a president can declare a decision or opinion of the court, whether inferior or supreme, to be unconstitutional. He needs to declare that he will continue his actions unless both Congress and the Judicial branch wish to jointly rein him in.

Further, it must be established that only a supreme Court and the Congress can provide marching orders to the President.  Congress, having established and made the rules for the inferior Courts needs to restrict the inferior courts from hearing any actions in complaint of the President and/or Congress.  Matters involving the Executive branch and the Congressional Branch, should only be heard by an equal branch of government.

Napolitano freedom

APPEARS TRUMP WAS SPIED UPON BY OBAMA!

DID BRITISH INTELLIGENCE ASSIST BARACK OBAMA?

In an interview with Judge Napolitano he explains how Obama could evesdrop on candidate and then president -elect Trump without FISA warrants and without a formal process within the NSA.  Judge Napolitano, cites three different sources.

The media is simply not equipped and not knowledgeable to adequately report on and keep up with the slight of hand from President and now former President Barack Obama.

We Can Stop Activist Judges!

A SIMPLE FIX EXISTS!

The U.S. Constitution: …”The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”…

The appointment of a federal judge has been interpreted as a lifetime appointment, no term limits, with impeachment as the only resolution to a judge who has gone off the rails via high crimes and misdemeanors.  What happens to these judges when he or she writes law, without regard to the wording of a statute and even the wording of the Constitution – nothing.  The 9th circuit just did this very thing.  They just came down with a unanimous majority decision that has absolutely no basis in law or under the Constitution.

16601765_759512607541433_3158766846015572067_o

The left has resorted to activist judges to overrule the Congress and the President when they do not have control of the Congress or the White House.  This has become a very successful tactic.  But is it Constitutional?

th-1

Term limits are often cited as a Constitution change that would solve this problem – it most certainly will not.  The problem is that we simply do not know the boundaries of “Bad Behaviour”.  When bad behavior is left to the interpretation of the members of Congress of both liberal, and now progressive, and conservative persuasion, there is no action, other than high crimes and misdemeanors.

judicial-activism

Defining this bad behavior in statute would then allow a fair and objective judgement of the federal judiciary.

Example:

If bad behavior were defined as a ruling vote or opinion not grounded in U.S. Code and/or the Constitution, then impeachment would be easier.  The vote or ruling could then be challenged and defended based on specifics and not a nebulous bad behavior.  The justice could be challenged by the Executive Branch or the Congress to show the hard and clear connection to a statute or the Constitution in the opinion.  If not, then “BAD BEHAVIOUR“.

With impeachment easier and more well-defined, the jurist would have a limit on interpretation and personal belief beyond the written law.  Activist judges could be reeled in, and the judiciary would more resemble what was intended – a fair and exacting arbiter of the Constitution and statute.

In 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall, under Marbury V. Madison, established/confirmed the legal principle known as Judicial Review.  Under Judicial Review, the supreme Court could declare a piece of Congressional legislation (or Executive actions) as unconstitutional.  Over time Judicial Review has become a tool of the inferior courts – district and appellate (circuit) courts.  This Judicial Review has clearly enabled judges to be activist judges.

This proposed statute definition of just how far Judicial Review can be taken is in order.  With it, we can bring back the necessary Checks and Balances found in and intended for the Constitution.