HISTORY OF THE WHCA℠(White House Correspondants Association)

HISTORY OF THE WHCA℠:





The White House "Press Corps" is present at the White House at the pleasure of the President of the United States.  Make no mistake about that !!! There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL, LEGISLATIVE, OR ANY OTHER "RIGHT"  for their presence other than the good will of the President to provide them some space to be and to, from time to time, speak with them directly or through his designee.



"Legend has it that reporters first took up a daily beat inside the White House one frigid day in the early 1900s, after President Theodore Roosevelt noticed a band of correspondents staking out sources in the rain. The president "looked out and took pity," as one chronicle of the period reports it."

Here are some links you can use to further inform yourself:

• http://www.whca.net/history.htm  (Pay particular attention @ 3:37 min. )
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_press_corps
• http://www.whca.net/history.htm
• A biased point of view:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-white-house-press-corps/2017/01/27/69d6c986-e407-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.6af4edddc8f0

'via Blog this'

WAR OF IDEAS

If, as I have heard it said, we (the western world) are at war with Islam it is a war of ideas.

I would refine that to say it is a war with radical Islam, or as some of my muslim friends suggest a war with a bunch of thugs who are no valid representation of them or their faith.

So, what can we do?  Since many of the readers of this blog are few, and older, I personally feel it is my obligation (and I'm suggesting this to the readers of this blog) to speak out, in a teaching and information sharing kind of way to anyone who needs to listen.

I have a rather strident, contentious, confrontational, personality.  To be heard it is imperative for me to keep these traits in check or no one will listen.

I have traveled extensively in my life so far and have had the opportunity to spend many hours with members of other cultures and faiths, and from my perspective, and I've said this many times, in many venues, to many people, that we share many common values.  I've met men who left very high paying and prestigious jobs to assume a much lesser position so they could spend more time with their family and children.  I have met people who take love and loyalty to their parents extremely seriously and have gone to great lengths and much personal sacrifice to make them comfortable and cared for in their old age.  The sort of examples abound in my experience.

As it is popular to say these days we have much more in common than not.

Tolerance, a lack of pedantry, an understanding of how others rights are just as valid and sacred as ours.

As the population of the planet continues to increase it becomes more and more important for us all to understand that we will all have to adopt some common norms of behavior if we are to coexist on this same little rock in the universe.

In my opinion the "war" we have to fight is a war against intolerance, a war against "I'm right and my right is the only right", not totally unlike the Catholic church during the inquisition (no offence intended).

My prayer is often: "...and God please protect me from radical extremists of ANY KIND!"  and by that I mean radical right to life believers who bomb and kill and maim clinics, and freedom of choice believers who engage in the same behavior, and religious radicals of any stripe, war hawks whose first thought is to "let's bomb 'em and kill 'em all", peace hawks who believe that the good they perceive in every human will prevail (some folks are just plain evil sociopaths), and any other sort of extreme radical.

But this is all just me.  My world is grey and full of endless possibilities.  Black and white is just not a concept that I would say is all that common in the real life of people, nations and the planet.

So, if the "war" we wage is one of ideas, we all have a lot of reading and understanding to do regarding the other fellows beliefs.

I'm gonna continue researching and learning right now..........

 

Some Political thoughts

All Good or All Bad?



If you are a reader of this blog, you already know it is not my nature to see things as black or white.  Ergo, one of the "good" things to come out of all of the conversation about the 2016 Presidential Election results is that any curious consumer of information will be driven to investigate more deeply the powers of the office of the president, the constitution, presidential orders, presidential memorandum, and the "meaning" of our founders.  I believe that is a positive thing.  Even if "not too many" are driven to delve deeper some will.



Here is a link that will allow you to read the actual presidential orders that have been issued recently:

https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders/donald-trump/2017

Any parts of these you find objectionable, please feel free to comment and support your decision.

Is the Electoral College in need of reform?

First it is my opinion that a clear understanding of the Electoral College. it's genesis, and how it was ultimately structured and why.  There are many good books and references on the writing of the Constitution but the one I am familiar with is "Madison's Hand, Revising the Constitution" by Mary Sara Bilder.  I found this book several levels "above my pay grade" in it's scholarly and academically thorough approach to the subject.  But it is an accurate (IMHO) picture of what actually happened.

Second, and I'm jumping ahead a bit here, but it is important to realize that "electors" within a state are governed by state law.  How that all works has very little to do with the constitution.

The constitution does not specify HOW electors within a state will be selected, but only that once selected they will cast their votes for candidates.

You can check for yourself which states have the "all or nothing" elector rule.

Having laid this groundwork, a constitutional amendment is required to change the electoral college as described in the constitution:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html  <---- a="" college.="" constitution="" describes="" electoral="" font="" is="" link="" of="" section="" the="" this="" to="" which="">

As you see, there is nothing preventing the states from deriving a revised method of selecting and directing electors.  

fairvote.org is a site and organization which has developed a well thought out (IMHO) approach within the states to alter the way electors behave.  I encourage you, if you have read this far to explore the site and draw you own conclusion. 

 http://www.fairvote.org/voter_choice 

The Media is absolutely free to say whatever they want whether it is true, factual, slanted or not.  Ref: USC, Numerous SCOTUS rulings.

Third, propaganda is not nearly as blatant as some/many people seem to believe when they hear the word.  I was listening to PBS this afternoon and heard someone like Christiane Amanpour (it may not have been her, I don't remember) but it was a person with some stature. Repeatedly they said 'Muslim Ban'.  Now that is just prejudicial and propagandizing a news story about a Presidential action (ref. 2nd paragraph above).  


As far as I'm aware, every president since Andrew Jackson has tried to increase the power of the "Office of the President".  Jackson did it, Teddy Roosevelt did it, FDR, did it, Eisenhower did it, etc.  They ALL have done it to some extent, some more than others.


MOST of what the POTUS does can be undone by the congress or the SCOTUS.  That's the way our Republic is organized.  That is how it was designed.


Protests, demonstrations, rallies etc are fine ways to draw attention to an issue and to try and garner support for a particular point of view.  BUT it is NOT an effective way to actually execute change.  Ya gotta be in the system to do that.  So get into the system.


I think I'm through for now.