What is Just and Fair

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way"

Category: Politics

Is the Electoral College Obsolete?

For the second time in sixteen years,  we have had an election where the winner did not win the popular vote.  Although Donald Trump lost the popular vote by a narrow margin,  he won enough electoral college votes to win the presidency.

Now many of the media talking heads and political hacks (but I repeat myself) have taken up the cry that the Electoral College is an anachronism,  a remnant of the 18th century being inflicted on modern times.  Is this true?   Is the Electoral College still needed?   One map answers this question.


The Electoral College exists for the same reason the United States Senate exists.   When the thirteen colonies decided to join together to form a nation,  the Founding Fathers were very aware of the problem cities present to a democracy.


Cities had been a problem since ancient times.   Rulers live in cities along with their extensive entourages and large numbers of poor unproductive people.   So rulers have long taxed the productive (the farmers in olden times)  to feed the cities.   Think the bread and circuses of ancient Rome.  It was said that the Pax Romana provided peace to the entire empire, except for the cesspool that was the city of Rome.  (Not deliberately drawing parallels to modern day Washington, D.C.,  but if the shoe fits…)

A good example from modern times is the Russian Revolution of 1917.   When Lenin and his fellow communists took over,  they knew their base was the urban workers of Moscow and other cities.  They didn’t care at all about the farmers in the countryside.  They,  like all other Russian rulers, viewed the farmers as slaves.  (Technically serfs,  since Russia had banned slavery by calling all the slaves serfs.)  They knew they had to feed the workers in the cities to maintain their power base.  Ultimately,  Stalin collectivized the farms,  resulting in the deaths of millions from starvation.

So back to the United States.   The smaller, less populated colonies knew that New York (New York City), Massachusetts (Boston), and Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) would come to dominate the smaller colonies in a pure democracy.   So they created two important institutions to insure the representation of the rest of the country,  the United States Senate,  with two senators for each state, regardless of population,  and the Electoral College,  with an extra elector for each state regardless of population.

Now look again at the map of the United States.   Hillary Clinton won the large cities,  where the massive political machines  (think ACORN and its corrupt successors) could generate a large votes,  and large parts of the population live on the government dole (think bread and circuses).   Meanwhile,  the vast majority of the rest of American counties voted for Donald Trump.  The same thing happened in 2000 between George Bush and Al Gore.

And the Electoral College worked just as the Founding Fathers intended, protecting the bulk of America from the domination by Tammany Hall style political machines.

Hate Speech In America

(originally published, March, 2004)

The Left has managed to pass a good deal of Hate Crime legislation which further penalizes evil doers if they have the wrong reason for committing their crime,  thereby adding political correctness to the penal code.   In addition, a great many colleges have passed policies which can get faculty fired and students expelled if their speech is not politically correct.  The rationale behind all this is that somehow we can establish a Mind Police which will insure that peoples thoughts are proper. Where what is proper is defined by a small group of the liberal’s best and the brightest.

The European Union recently passed a law banning Internet hate speech which it defines as “any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors.”   Interesting bit about religion there at the end,   I guess this means that it’s ok to attack a religion, just as long as it’s not a pretext for racism.

The Canadian government has gone a step forward,  signing into law a measure that would ban any expression against homosexuality.   Opponents believe the courts will determine this law bans the Bible as hate speech.

Proponents of Hate Speech legislation are concerned that hateful speech can incite actual violence. One of the most curious aspects of all this is that the whole “hate speech” gambit is used in only one direction.   Liberals are allowed to accuse Conservatives of being Nazis,  Hitlers, Warmongers,  and so forth and so on while at the very same time, sometimes in the same speech, accusing them of being racist bigots who promote hate and violence.


Check out the “Death to America” theme.


These were just some of a raft of attacks, sometimes violent, on Republican headquarters across the country.

This has been the first time in recent history that we have had such violence,  where senior citizens and students acting as campaign workers were literally terrorized in their own headquarters.   Just for fun,  try to find any equivalent attacks by Republicans (repeatedly called Brown Shirts during the campaign) against Democrats.

Is there any question that our once civil political discussion is being reduced to thugs chanting profanities, propagating lies, and violently attacking Republicans?  What caused all of this?  Hate speech.  Liberal hate speech against Republicans.   Television and Internet commercials comparing our President to Adolf Hitler.  Repeated lies about disenfranchised voters.   The Democrats managed to incite the baser of their base into actual acts of violence.   Then, with plausible deniability, the Democratic Party spokespeople could disavow the violence while at the same time getting in jabs about how upset people were with the Republicans.

What do I mean by Hate Speech?  Let’s take some examples:

“Never again will a million African Americans be denied the right to exercise their vote in the United States of America,” 

John Kerry made this declaration from the pulpit of the largely Black Friendship Missionary Baptist Church of Miami.  He repeated it over and over again in different venues in the closing weeks of the campaign,  even though he knew there was no basis for it.    The Main Stream Media (MSM) that repeated these sound bites over and over also knew there was no basis for them.   In fact,  many of the studies trying to find a basis for them were conducted by MSM coalitions.  Yet the reporters and editors let these inflammatory statements go unchallenged.   They knew they were false and they must have known of the effect they would have on the Black community.

“The United States is a land that has raped every area of the world.”

–         Susan Sarandon, actress and liberal activist

“There are tens of thousands of people who lived through (the Holocaust), escaped the ovens, and are now living out their final years in South Florida,” “Sixty-two years ago tonight, the. . . German government sent goon squads throughout the country to trash and burn the homes, stores, and temples of its Jewish citizens.  Seven years and six million slaughtered lives later, the Jewish people of Europe were virtually extinct.  A few survived.  I will not allow those who survived to … be abused again.”

–  Michael Moore, demanding a new vote     in  Palm Beach County

“The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush … and his band of brown-shirted thugs.”

– Sandra Bernhard, actress

“Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon would get my vote”

– Richard Berthold,   Univ. of New Mexico Professor

Can there be any question that this kind of language inflames the young, the impressionable, and the terminally stupid?    America’s strength over the past two hundred years has come from our peaceful transfer of power every four years and our free press.   Any student of history knows these are both incredibly rare.   This year,  we could have easily seen that peaceful transfer marred by rioting and legal wrangles,  largely because our free press failed to do its duty and debunk the demagogs.   The result would have been disastrous,  not only for us, but for the world

Why do Blacks vote the Democrat ticket?

Someone please explain to me.  Why do Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic?  OK, I understand saying that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln doesn’t carry much water.  The logical response is “Yeah, but what have you done for us lately?”

OK,  what about the fact that schools were integrated because a Republican President,  Eisenhower,  appointed a popular Republican governor, Earl Warren,  as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  He did it as a recess appointment to get past Democratic opposition,  and he did it to bring in a Chief Justice who could orchestrate a unanimous decision on a most important case,  Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka.  Without a Republican President and a Republican chief justice, the separate but equal doctrine may have stood for another decade.

Meanwhile, where were the Democrats?  It brings us back to Lincoln.  Because of his actions, the Republican Party lost the South for more than a hundred years.  All of the major political figures resisting integration,  from state governors to county sheriffs, were Democrats.  And they put up a unified front effectively blocking integration for years,  until the Kennedy Brothers came to town and broke ranks. Even after Kennedy,  the Democrats voted unanimously against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

So how did the Democrats co-opt the Black vote?  Was it LBJ’s War on Poverty?  To any disinterested observer,  all the War on Poverty accomplished was to break up the Black family (welfare couples were rewarded for not being married) and put many poor Blacks into a cycle of dependence on government charity programs, thus destroying the basic human pride of many Blacks.

The Democratic leadership combined with a cadre of non-elected black leaders assume that all Blacks must vote Democratic and follow the party line.   When Blacks break free of this mold,  there are incredibly racist attacks.  President Bush appointed the first Black male Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and now has appointed the first Black female Secretary of State, Condeleeza Rice.  What was the reaction of the Democratic party?  Elation?  No way.  The reaction was a full scale attack on the successful Blacks.  One Democratic radio commentator referred to her as an Aunt Jemimah.  Gary Trudeau depicted the President referring to her as “Brown Sugar” in his popular Doonesbury comic strip.  Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas were referred to as  “Uncle Toms.”  Democrats seem to have discovered that they can be as racist as they want to be and no one will call them to task.

Obviously,  racist attacks against successful Blacks, whether politicians or businesspeople, are a means for Democrats to keep Blacks in their place.  Keeping them living close to those streets named Martin Luther King Way and voting the right way.  Where are the unelected Black leaders?  The likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton receive their power from the Democratic establishment.  They maintain their power as long as they toe the party line.  And obviously, real success stories are a threat to the Jesse Jacksons of the world, who never really accomplished anything except exploiting racism for their own aggrandizement.

How do people like Jesse Jackson receive their power?  By getting the spot light from the Democratic party,  the Liberal Main Stream Media,  and liberal groups like the NEA.  For example, several years ago my daughter, then in fifth grade, had to complete a worksheet about Jesse Jackson.  The correct answers on the worksheet were to fill in that Jesse Jackson was a “courageous” leader and similar superlatives.

Just take a moment for a reality check.  What do you think would happen if a conservative journalist (an endangered species if ever there was one) used such racist terms against any Black.  Or if a similar school worksheet touted the sterling qualities of, say, Rush Limbaugh.

Think about it.

Very simply,  the main difference between today’s Conservatives and Liberals is that Liberals believe big government can solve society’s problems where Conservatives believe big government is the cause of many of society’s problems.  Conservatives believe in individual rights, individual opportunity, and perhaps most distinctively, individual responsibility.  The government’s job is to provide freedom and justice for all,  not to set up a constituency as victims.  Government programs to provide aid to victim groups can only be successful, in a government sense, if the group continues to be victims.  The bureaucrats running the welfare bureaucracies are successful if they can grow their bureaucracy.

Blacks are exploited and suppressed by the Democratic Party.  Successful Blacks who break away from the fold are villified unmercifully.  The greatest hope is that more and more Blacks are moving to the middle and upper classes,  and as they do,  they get a much better view of what is happening and begin to vote Republican.

And the Democratic party exploits other people who have bought into their own victimhood.  Whether women, hispanics, gays, or any other group.  Republicans like to think of people as individuals, each with their own potential and responsibilities.  These are both generalizations, of course,  there are plenty of exceptions on each side.  I refer to the norm.


Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén