Who Has The Party Delegates?

What all the GOP candidates are after, are so-called ‘delegates.’Elected officials that will broker the convention of either party this fall. Officials are parcelled by the amount of votes, the candidates receive in the primary.

During Michigan’s primary recently, for instance, there were 30 official delegates, state-wide. Two were ‘at-large’ candidates, which meant they could be assigned individually to any winning candidate. The other 28 were ‘proportional’ ones, alotted through 14 congressional districts. During the push for the nominations in Michigan last night, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum spent millions of dollars to influence the voting population; with TV ads, pamphlets, media, interviews, rallies, stickers, and much more. Michigan’s grand sum of politcal expenditure was near six million bucks.

Delegates are what really counts at the GOP convention. What looks to be happening, is that no clear winner will come out victorious. There’s a righteous number: 1444 delegates will win any nominee the victory-nod of the Republican National Committee. Nationwide, 2169 delegates are extended for contestation, until the RNC celebration in Tampa, Florida. From the RN Committee, an additional 117 delegates are added into the mix, ostensibly to keep debate lively and clear-up dead locks. So what appears, on first looks, to be a rather hot-headed and fast paced Republican rocket-launch to the RNC, is more like a jammed or misfired pistol in a duel.

Momentarily, Mitt Romney is in the lead, with 167 total delegates. Rick Santorum is second with roughly half, at 87. Newt Gingrich won only one state and has 32, while Ron Paul has 19 carefully collected delegations. The count may reshuffle at any moment, since constitutionalism and populism together, ring alarm-bells in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

VIDEO: Daily Caller Remembers 9/11, Examines Life Since

Via the Daily Caller’s video producer Sean W. Malone comes this new mini-documentary reflecting on the horrors of 9/11, and an examination of how America and the world reacted in terms of public policy. The video features Daily Caller editor-in-chief Tucker Carlson, Cato Institute vice president for defense and foreign policy studies Christopher A. Preble, Cato research fellow in defense and homeland security studies Benjamin H. Friedman, Heritage Foundation’s director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies James Carafano, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla. 22nd), and’s development director Angela Keaton.

National security policy, like all other forms of public policy, involves an innumerable series of trade-offs. We should be applying the same rigorous cost-benefit analyses to the Pentagon and DHS budgets that we do to social welfare programs.

The best line in the whole video comes from Tucker Carlson, who quips,

VIDEO: Cato’s Primer on Obama’s Jobs Speech

We can only hope the president will have time to preview this video before his address — but really, would it matter?

Video produced by Caleb Brown, host of the Cato Daily Podcast, and Austin Bragg.

Building Codes and Zoning Laws Strike Again: “Battle for the California Desert”

I’ve spilled a lot of digital ink over the years writing about national politics and sea changes in public policy. If it wasn’t for some great professors, I probably would’ve never taken an interest in urban development policy — at least not until I acquired some property of my own and attempted to do something with it (I’m not a homeowner).

I argued at The Dangerous Servant earlier this year that


This is a game of concentrated benefits with diffused costs, and it takes the form — in this case — of zoning laws, but it also includes building codes.

City planners use zoning laws to create geospatial distinctions in an urban jurisdiction by restricting the ways in which property owners can use their land or buildings. When regulations help crowd economic activity out of a residential area, home prices rise artificially because the zone becomes less noisy, less polluted, and less congested. As a result, existing homeowners wind up paying a higher amount of property taxes each year the zoning rules are in effect. Any new developments designed to attract new residents to a jurisdiction also take on a disproportionate share of property taxes.

VIDEO: The Importance of Bars and Taverns in Political Movements

Compare to satirist P.J. O’Rourke’s preface to Republican Party Reptile:

So, what I’d really like is a new label. And I’m sure a lot of people feel the same way. We are the Republican Party Reptiles. We look like Republicans, and think like conservatives, but we drive a lot faster and keep vibrators and baby oil and a video camera behind the stack of sweaters on the bedroom closet shelf. I think our agenda is clear. We are opposed to: government spending, Kennedy kids, seat-belt laws, being a pussy about nuclear power, busing our children anywhere other than Yale, trailer courts near our vacation homes, Gary Hart, tiny Third World countries that don’t have banking secrecy laws, aerobics, the U.N., taxation without tax loopholes, and jewelry on men. We are in favor of: guns, drugs, fast cars, free love (if our wives don’t find out), a sound dollar, a cleaner environment (poor people should cut it out with the graffiti), a strong military with spiffy uniforms, Natassia Kinski, Star Wars (and anything else that scares the Russkis), and a firm stand on the Middle East (raze buildings, burn crops, plow the earth with salt, and sell the population into bondage).

There are thousands of people in America who feel this way, especially after three or four drinks. If all of us would unite and work together, we could give this country… well, a real bad hangover.

On Drugs And Immigrants, We Either Believe In Freedom Or We Don’t

Those who affiliate themselves, either casually or intensely, with the right wing of the political spectrum need to seriously look themselves in the mirror as regards our policies toward our southern neighbors.

On immigration and the War on Drugs, nativism and paternalism seem to be the dominant fundamentalisms of those who most frequently espouse a fondness for freedom and liberty. On immigration especially, nativism goes directly against not only what America is, a nation of immigrants, but against the beacon of liberty that conservative icon Ronald Reagan characterized America as:

Robinson correctly observes that Reagan would have had nothing to do with the anger and inflamed rhetoric that so often marks the immigration debate today. “Ronald Reagan was no kind of nativist,” he concludes, noting that Reagan was always reaching out to voters beyond the traditional Republican base, including the fast-growing Hispanic population.

It’s worth remembering that Reagan signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which opened the door to citizenship for nearly 3 million people who had been living in the country illegally. Robinson is confident Reagan would have supported the kind of comprehensive immigration reform championed by President George W. Bush and approved by the Senate in 2006.

This will seem quite harsh, but I will say it frankly and succinctly: If you think that a child born in this country but the parents of illegal immigrants should be deported, you don’t believe in freedom. You believe in something else; something antithetical to the beautiful message which adorns the Statue of Liberty:

Support for Marijuana Reform in California

Polls in the state are showing support, albeit reportedly shaky, for marijuana legalization:

California voters, by a modest margin, think they should be allowed to grow and consume marijuana, according to a new poll that also found more than 1 in 3 voters had tried pot and more than 1 in 10 had lit up in the past year.

The Los Angeles Times/USC poll found that voters back the marijuana legalization measure on the November ballot, 49% to 41%, with 10% uncertain about it. But support for the initiative is unstable, with one-third of the supporters saying they favor it only “somewhat.”

For anyone shaky on this issue, I can imagine where you are coming from. Perhaps you’re like Charles Krauthammer and don’t like the thought of living in a world where marijuana and other drugs are available readily in a drug store. To those who share Krauthammer’s concerns, remember that we live in a world of trade offs. We can remain living in a world where drugs are available in the seedy alley behind a local pharmacy, or move to a world where drugs are available safely from the neighborhood pharmacist.

The “Green Fields of Governance” or the “Scorched Earth of Socialism”

By: Don Casey

The global society is experiencing the repercussions from the first tidal wave associated with the “wrenching transformation” referenced by Al Gore in his book, “Earth in the Balance”.

This initial destructive wave (financial in nature) is due to the commitment by the majority of the governments of the world to provide a house for every form of family unit. Thus, this commitment, from the United Nations 1995 Habitat II Conference would be listed as priority one in the June 2001 “United States – Habitat II” Progress Report. Referencing this ill-fated policy, the report states:

Say Goodbye to the American Dream

Most of us have seen the passionate speech given by George Baily in It’s a Wonderful Life to the evil bank-owner, Mr. Potter, begging for leniency towards Potter’s delinquent homeowners and espousing why owning a home makes the residents of Bedford Falls better citizens and more productive members of society.

Mr. Potter is simply interested in making sure his payments are received on time and that foreclosures are issued to those who fall behind.  He believes, and rightly so, that if a man has overextended himself and cannot pay his bills, the mortgage owner has the right to claim the house and boot the residents out.

George Baily, however, is more interested in promoting the “American Dream”- home ownership- and has built his life and Savings and Loan business around helping families buy homes… even if they’re not quite ready to take on that financial responsibility.

Strassel: “God Made a Farm Bill”

We don’t often write here at United Liberty to celebrate works in other publications, but Kimberley Strassel at the Wall Street Journal has written something so epic, so flawless, so profound, and so important, that it needs to be celebrated and read by every voter and every taxpayer in this country.

First, a little back story. In 1978, legendary radio broadcaster Paul Harvey gave a speech to the Future Farmers of America convention, which included a section that became known as “So God Made a Farmer.” It was a continuation of the Biblical story of creation, using similar prose and Harvey’s profound voice to celebrate the importance of hard-working farmers in America. His speech was actually adapted from an earlier column he wrote, which was in turn adapted from a 1940 letter published in the Ellensburg Daily Record, but Harvey’s speech made it into an instant classic.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.