Saw in person I got to see and hear Mike in person. My friend visited who grew up Catholic, going through all the sacraments. She verified that not all of what Mike spoke was true, which can be very misleading. I've visited Catholic services that are not like what Mike speaks about in his lesson. So, do yourself a favor and listen to this, but DO YOUR OWN STUDY AND VISIT FOR YOURSELF.
more specific I listened to your sermon today. I would like to ask you to give better details , be more specific name songs that are not God -honoring. Name so -called Christians bands not to listen to. Hey you say you've stepped on some toes, why not stomp on some feet. However one thing very important explain exactly why a song isn't God honoring. One of the biggest problems we have today it seems no one gives details.
I do listen to your problem daily and appreciate your service to the Lord.
If this sounded mean it was not intended however when I make the claim to kids that a song is not God-honoring they question me relentlessly. I believe if you would name songs, explain why more and more people would understand.
Sampling of Conservative Support In May 2011, Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in â€śNational Popular Vote is Good for Republicans:â€ť "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state â€“ and every voter â€“ to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States [that then existed in 2011].
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or donâ€™t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."
The National Advisory Board of Natl Popular Vote includes former Congressman John Buchanan (Râ€“AL), and former Senators David Durenberger (Râ€“MN), and Jake Garn (Râ€“UT).
Supporters include Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo, and Newt Gingrich
Republicans, Dems, and Inds Support NPV In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338â€“70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.
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).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
Mathematical Realities We would still be a republic, electing the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.
With the current system, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the U.S., for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
In 1790, 95% of the U.S. pop lived in places of less than 2,500 people,
It is unlikely that the Founders were concerned about presidential candidates campaigning in or being chosen only by large pop centers.
With NPV, candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.
16% of Americans live in rural areas.
Big cities would not get all of candidatesâ€™ attention, much less control the outcome.
The pop. of the top five cities (NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the pop of the U.S. and the pop of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the pop of the U.S.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Rep.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
80% of States Would No Longer Be Ignored With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founders meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election.
Bottom Line â€śThe bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable . . . to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states . . . have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.â€ť
- Vikram David Amar - professor UC Davis School of Law. He clerked for Judge William Norris of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court.
In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.
South Dakota - 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2
Electoral College Would Elect President The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Context Prior to arriving at the wording of section 1 of Article II, the Constitutional Convention voted against different methods for selecting the President, including
? having state legislatures choose,
? having governors choose, and
? a national popular vote.
After these (and other) methods were debated and rejected, the Constitutional Convention decided to leave the entire matter to the states.
The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method are not 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 the first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only 3 states used the state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
Clarifications The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
Awesome Sermon! I did not quite catch Mrs. Phyllis last name...Great guest speaker...She has and is filled with lots of wisdom and spoke with so much clarity...We as women need to heed this message presented on this sermon. Praise God for women like her...God Bless you both.
It has been some good info, but I didn't hear the guest especially or host very often mention sin and the reason for this is the sin of lust and the depravity of man. Sin is the root of the problem. Also, repentance should have been mentioned. This seems like a secular show I was listening to besides a couple callers talking of its poison and the mention of porn being a problem in Church. The word purity was used, but man, talk about sin. The gospel is the solution! Mention the gospel! Look to Christ! Especially if the guest got to go on NPR, hopefully she used that opportunity to share the gospel to the lost listeners of NPR and the problem of sin. Keep up the work, but to the guest Dawn: please mention sin, repentance, prayer and the gospel otherwise we are just using the arm of the flesh and not the Holy Spirit.