November 18, 2016
Poison Pardon
Timothy Birdnow
Writing at American Thinker today Dan Jones argues that Obama will not pardon Hillary but Trump ultimately will.
In a piece entitled "Hillary's Nightmares" Jones sets out a strong case that Barack Obama will not pardon Mrs. Clinton:
"President Obama will not pardon Hillary Clinton, in conformity with his oft-repeated insistence that she did not knowingly do anything wrong and that she certainly did not jeopardize national security, and hence she has done nothing that needs pardoning."
[...]
"A deeper reason for not pardoning her is: He’s mad as hell. He revealed some of his anger early in his first press conference after the election, when he pointed out that if you want to win Iowa, you’ve got to campaign in Iowa. This was a direct dig at Hillary. He thinks she blew it,"
[...]
"The greatest factor weighing against an Obama pardon, however, is what it would do to that for which he most dearly yearns: his legacy. It’s hard enough for Obama to insist, as he has frequently done, that the election was less a repudiation of his policies than a desire by some folks to "shake things up.†It’s harder still to admit that he appointed a miscreant to the office of Secretary of State who jeopardized national security under his watch and with his witless (i.e. email) participation"
End excerpts.
He's right on all particulars but he misses a couple of key points. First, Obama himself e-mailed Hillary at her private server, meaning he knew full well about the legal violation. Now he wants to keep the focus on Hillary, lest questions be asked about his knowledge and, frankly, his legal culpability. Obama is likewise open to charges here, and in a non-partisan investigation (sans Comey) there could well be legal trouble for him. It's doubtful, but it is possible.
Contrary to Mr. Jones' characterization, Obama had to know that what he was doing was a security breach. I don't think it can be characterized as "witless".
But more to the point; the Chicago people are not going to go away, and Hillary is not from that particular wing (even though she ultimately hails from the Windy City.) At this point there is no upside to saving Hillary or Bill, and Obama knows it. He wants them gone, not hanging around as competitors, and a long, agonizing investigation and perhaps prosecution serves the Chicago Way well. Without that the Clintons will be wounded but not out - and may try to assert Hillary's rightful claim as head of the Democratic Party, something Obama is not likely to tolerate. It's in his interest to keep the mill grinding Hillary's grist (sorry to talk about Hillary's grist so early in the morning.)
Jones thinks Trump will probably let the wheels turn and ultimately pardon Hill:
"I predict that President Trump will instruct his Justice Department to continue to vigorously investigate the machinations of the Clinton Foundation, and ultimately to issue a detailed Comey-like public statement on their findings. And then -- if the Clintons are found to have committed violations of law, and after the public has been advised of the extent and details of their lawbreaking -- President Trump will pardon them."
End excerpt.
I suspect that is the way this will play out, too, because there will be a lot of pressure from the Washington insiders to protect one of their own, and Trump, his hands very full and immersed in the cauldron of Washington political infighting, will want to take the easy way out. He shouldn't do it; this is about the rule of law, and a Trump pardon will have the same effect that the Nixon pardon did on poor old Gerald Ford. The public wants justice, and letting Hillary go yet again only magnifies the sense that she is either innocent and being persecuted or guilty and walking because of her political connections. Either way, pardoning her would be a Yuggee mistake. She must be found guilty of something, and even if she avoids jail time should be punished in some way. Remember, Bill Clinton pled guilty to perjury and was fined half a million dollars plus lost his law license for five years. This was a slap on the wrist by a former student (the judge in the Paula Jones case) but at least it was on Clinton's record. Hillary must receive at least equal punishment, and more importantly, a finding of guilt in a court of law.
Pardoning is such sweet sorrow. In this case it would be poison pardoning.
And it's good politics too, because Hillary will make all manner of mischief if not distracted by a long, bitter legal battle. In this instance what is good for Obama is also good for Trump; keep the evil witch busy and out of their collective hair (and Trump doesn't need any more hair problems.) The Clinton family must be taken out of the political equation; Trump can't afford them nipping at his heels. Furthermore, the Clinton Foundation needs to be dissolved, and the Clinton's vast fortune of ill-gotten gains must be returned to the rightful owners. Without money the Clinton family will be little more than bereft plantation owners after Sherman's march; a once great family returned to the obscurity from which fortune had plucked them. In short, one less liberal icon to struggle against.
Another point to ponder; the media is not just wrong but evil, and it never rests. Our side is loathe to understand that point because nobody wants to face evil, and nobody wants to admit they have acquiesced to evil (and we all have by giving the media the power it possesses). It also smacks of hyperbole. But the reality is the media has thrown itself completely on the side of collectivism and heterodoxy, and they hate conservatives with more than just an intellectual passion. They seek our demise. They are ravenous beasts, laying in wait to pounce. So every second they are forced to spend on defense is a second taken from them from offense. This is not an inconsequential consideration. Trump will have to always consider how to keep the media occupied and out of his way, which means he will always be on the offensive himself, forcing them to react. If he fails to do that they will control the narrative, and will turn it in their favor. A successful general controls the time and place of battle. Keeping Hillary in the news as long as possible ties up the resources of the media. Trump MUST do that.
It's logical on all counts. Trump must never, ever pardon Hillary. The temptation will be great and many in the GOP will want to do it but it would be quite foolish. Did the Democrats ever suggest pardoning Spiro Agnew? Richard Nixon? Have they ever, in their endless quest for power, done anything remotely like that? No; they are the ones who pursue bogus criminal investigations against good men and women to destroy them and take them out of the fray. Nobody here is suggesting we make false charges, just that we allow justice to be served. The Clintons have outrun justice for far too long.
Writing at American Thinker today Dan Jones argues that Obama will not pardon Hillary but Trump ultimately will.
In a piece entitled "Hillary's Nightmares" Jones sets out a strong case that Barack Obama will not pardon Mrs. Clinton:
"President Obama will not pardon Hillary Clinton, in conformity with his oft-repeated insistence that she did not knowingly do anything wrong and that she certainly did not jeopardize national security, and hence she has done nothing that needs pardoning."
[...]
"A deeper reason for not pardoning her is: He’s mad as hell. He revealed some of his anger early in his first press conference after the election, when he pointed out that if you want to win Iowa, you’ve got to campaign in Iowa. This was a direct dig at Hillary. He thinks she blew it,"
[...]
"The greatest factor weighing against an Obama pardon, however, is what it would do to that for which he most dearly yearns: his legacy. It’s hard enough for Obama to insist, as he has frequently done, that the election was less a repudiation of his policies than a desire by some folks to "shake things up.†It’s harder still to admit that he appointed a miscreant to the office of Secretary of State who jeopardized national security under his watch and with his witless (i.e. email) participation"
End excerpts.
He's right on all particulars but he misses a couple of key points. First, Obama himself e-mailed Hillary at her private server, meaning he knew full well about the legal violation. Now he wants to keep the focus on Hillary, lest questions be asked about his knowledge and, frankly, his legal culpability. Obama is likewise open to charges here, and in a non-partisan investigation (sans Comey) there could well be legal trouble for him. It's doubtful, but it is possible.
Contrary to Mr. Jones' characterization, Obama had to know that what he was doing was a security breach. I don't think it can be characterized as "witless".
But more to the point; the Chicago people are not going to go away, and Hillary is not from that particular wing (even though she ultimately hails from the Windy City.) At this point there is no upside to saving Hillary or Bill, and Obama knows it. He wants them gone, not hanging around as competitors, and a long, agonizing investigation and perhaps prosecution serves the Chicago Way well. Without that the Clintons will be wounded but not out - and may try to assert Hillary's rightful claim as head of the Democratic Party, something Obama is not likely to tolerate. It's in his interest to keep the mill grinding Hillary's grist (sorry to talk about Hillary's grist so early in the morning.)
Jones thinks Trump will probably let the wheels turn and ultimately pardon Hill:
"I predict that President Trump will instruct his Justice Department to continue to vigorously investigate the machinations of the Clinton Foundation, and ultimately to issue a detailed Comey-like public statement on their findings. And then -- if the Clintons are found to have committed violations of law, and after the public has been advised of the extent and details of their lawbreaking -- President Trump will pardon them."
End excerpt.
I suspect that is the way this will play out, too, because there will be a lot of pressure from the Washington insiders to protect one of their own, and Trump, his hands very full and immersed in the cauldron of Washington political infighting, will want to take the easy way out. He shouldn't do it; this is about the rule of law, and a Trump pardon will have the same effect that the Nixon pardon did on poor old Gerald Ford. The public wants justice, and letting Hillary go yet again only magnifies the sense that she is either innocent and being persecuted or guilty and walking because of her political connections. Either way, pardoning her would be a Yuggee mistake. She must be found guilty of something, and even if she avoids jail time should be punished in some way. Remember, Bill Clinton pled guilty to perjury and was fined half a million dollars plus lost his law license for five years. This was a slap on the wrist by a former student (the judge in the Paula Jones case) but at least it was on Clinton's record. Hillary must receive at least equal punishment, and more importantly, a finding of guilt in a court of law.
Pardoning is such sweet sorrow. In this case it would be poison pardoning.
And it's good politics too, because Hillary will make all manner of mischief if not distracted by a long, bitter legal battle. In this instance what is good for Obama is also good for Trump; keep the evil witch busy and out of their collective hair (and Trump doesn't need any more hair problems.) The Clinton family must be taken out of the political equation; Trump can't afford them nipping at his heels. Furthermore, the Clinton Foundation needs to be dissolved, and the Clinton's vast fortune of ill-gotten gains must be returned to the rightful owners. Without money the Clinton family will be little more than bereft plantation owners after Sherman's march; a once great family returned to the obscurity from which fortune had plucked them. In short, one less liberal icon to struggle against.
Another point to ponder; the media is not just wrong but evil, and it never rests. Our side is loathe to understand that point because nobody wants to face evil, and nobody wants to admit they have acquiesced to evil (and we all have by giving the media the power it possesses). It also smacks of hyperbole. But the reality is the media has thrown itself completely on the side of collectivism and heterodoxy, and they hate conservatives with more than just an intellectual passion. They seek our demise. They are ravenous beasts, laying in wait to pounce. So every second they are forced to spend on defense is a second taken from them from offense. This is not an inconsequential consideration. Trump will have to always consider how to keep the media occupied and out of his way, which means he will always be on the offensive himself, forcing them to react. If he fails to do that they will control the narrative, and will turn it in their favor. A successful general controls the time and place of battle. Keeping Hillary in the news as long as possible ties up the resources of the media. Trump MUST do that.
It's logical on all counts. Trump must never, ever pardon Hillary. The temptation will be great and many in the GOP will want to do it but it would be quite foolish. Did the Democrats ever suggest pardoning Spiro Agnew? Richard Nixon? Have they ever, in their endless quest for power, done anything remotely like that? No; they are the ones who pursue bogus criminal investigations against good men and women to destroy them and take them out of the fray. Nobody here is suggesting we make false charges, just that we allow justice to be served. The Clintons have outrun justice for far too long.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:51 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1203 words, total size 7 kb.
House of Representatives to stop Sale of War Planes to Iran
Dana Mathewson
Aw-right!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/16/house-lawmakers-to-nix-obama-admin-backed-sale-us-planes-to-iran.html
Lawmakers in the House are expected to overwhelmingly pass new legislation on Wednesday that would prohibit the Obama administration from facilitating the sale of U.S. aircraft to Iran, according to senior congressional sources who told the Washington Free Beacon that Iran is likely to use American-made planes to rebuild its aging air force.
End excerpt.
A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP
On Jan. 20, 2017, ICE agents should arrest Obama around 2 p.m. and ask him to hand over his birth certificate. If he can't produce a valid one, they should deport him before 6 p.m.
Aw-right!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/16/house-lawmakers-to-nix-obama-admin-backed-sale-us-planes-to-iran.html
Lawmakers in the House are expected to overwhelmingly pass new legislation on Wednesday that would prohibit the Obama administration from facilitating the sale of U.S. aircraft to Iran, according to senior congressional sources who told the Washington Free Beacon that Iran is likely to use American-made planes to rebuild its aging air force.
End excerpt.
A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP
On Jan. 20, 2017, ICE agents should arrest Obama around 2 p.m. and ask him to hand over his birth certificate. If he can't produce a valid one, they should deport him before 6 p.m.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:49 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
November 17, 2016
Cardinal Burke Threatens to Publicly Correct Pope Francis
Timothy Birdnow
The Catholic Church appears to be heading for a schism. Breitbart news is reporting that Cardinal Raymond Burke (who used to be the Archbishop here in St. Louis and was the head of the Vatican Supreme Court - the top doctrinal officer of the Catholic Church) has demanded Pope Francis issue a clarification of doctrine regarding who may receive Holy Communion or he will be reprimanded.
According to Breitbart:
"Cardinal Raymond Burke has insisted that Pope Francis must clarify serious doctrinal doubts arising from his teaching letter Amoris Laetitia, or the Cardinal will be forced to initiate "a formal act of correction of a serious error.â€
In September, four top Catholic cardinals including Burke wrote a private letter to Pope Francis asking him to clarify five serious doctrinal doubts proceeding from his 2016 apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) concerning Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried, the indissolubility of marriage, and the proper role of conscience.
When the Pope failed to reply to the Cardinals’ letter, they proceeded to publish it online on Nov. 14, hoping to solicit a response.
In an interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register, Burke said that although it is "quite rare,†Catholic tradition allows for the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff, something that may become necessary.
"But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error,†he said."
End excerpt.
This is the first time anything even remotely similar has happened in the modern era. Pope Francis has made many disturbing and ambiguous statements since becoming Pontiff, and in many ways he has roiled the Faith by walking to the brink of apostacy on Catholic issues then turning in the most lukewarm fashion. For example, Francis said "who am I to judge" when asked about homosexuality and gay marriage. Well, it is the job he sought and accepted, that's what the Pope does. Catholic doctrine has been quite clear on this; homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage doubles down on that sin. The Pope feels sympathy and that is fine; it's a sin of the flesh and not spirit, after all, and Jesus was quick to forgive sins of the flesh PROVIDED THE SINNER GO AND SIN NO MORE but the Church has always been clear that it is not acceptable, any more than is heterosexual promiscuity or overeating or telling 'white" lies. These may be understandable and even pitiable but are still a violation of God's law.
Francis has been not just a rebel but a revolutionary, a renegade. I am not surprised that some of the inner sanctum of the Church is in rebellion.
There have been radicals inside Catholicism who have sought to hollow it out for some time, and many once-fine institutions (like the Jesuits) were radicalized. The pedophilia scandal was a direct result of such an infiltration by the worldy, who sought to change the "prudish" nature of the priesthood by bringing in the sexually "liberated". The end result was a serious moral wound to the Faith, a wound that continues to bleed. It is high time someone fight back against this spirit of anti-Christ.
But liberals are always unpleasant in their death throes, and just as they rage against conservatives in the political realm so too will they rage against them in the spiritual. There could well be a schism, a breaking apart of the Church. It can be argued that Francis is illigitmate anyway because Benedict was anointed Pope for life, and he was likely bullied into stepping down to put this moral progressive into the seat of St. Peter.
As the Fourth Century Saint Anthony the Abbott observed:
Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day's problems. When the Church and the world are one, then those days are at hand.
The Catholic Church appears to be heading for a schism. Breitbart news is reporting that Cardinal Raymond Burke (who used to be the Archbishop here in St. Louis and was the head of the Vatican Supreme Court - the top doctrinal officer of the Catholic Church) has demanded Pope Francis issue a clarification of doctrine regarding who may receive Holy Communion or he will be reprimanded.
According to Breitbart:
"Cardinal Raymond Burke has insisted that Pope Francis must clarify serious doctrinal doubts arising from his teaching letter Amoris Laetitia, or the Cardinal will be forced to initiate "a formal act of correction of a serious error.â€
In September, four top Catholic cardinals including Burke wrote a private letter to Pope Francis asking him to clarify five serious doctrinal doubts proceeding from his 2016 apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) concerning Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried, the indissolubility of marriage, and the proper role of conscience.
When the Pope failed to reply to the Cardinals’ letter, they proceeded to publish it online on Nov. 14, hoping to solicit a response.
In an interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register, Burke said that although it is "quite rare,†Catholic tradition allows for the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff, something that may become necessary.
"But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error,†he said."
End excerpt.
This is the first time anything even remotely similar has happened in the modern era. Pope Francis has made many disturbing and ambiguous statements since becoming Pontiff, and in many ways he has roiled the Faith by walking to the brink of apostacy on Catholic issues then turning in the most lukewarm fashion. For example, Francis said "who am I to judge" when asked about homosexuality and gay marriage. Well, it is the job he sought and accepted, that's what the Pope does. Catholic doctrine has been quite clear on this; homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage doubles down on that sin. The Pope feels sympathy and that is fine; it's a sin of the flesh and not spirit, after all, and Jesus was quick to forgive sins of the flesh PROVIDED THE SINNER GO AND SIN NO MORE but the Church has always been clear that it is not acceptable, any more than is heterosexual promiscuity or overeating or telling 'white" lies. These may be understandable and even pitiable but are still a violation of God's law.
Francis has been not just a rebel but a revolutionary, a renegade. I am not surprised that some of the inner sanctum of the Church is in rebellion.
There have been radicals inside Catholicism who have sought to hollow it out for some time, and many once-fine institutions (like the Jesuits) were radicalized. The pedophilia scandal was a direct result of such an infiltration by the worldy, who sought to change the "prudish" nature of the priesthood by bringing in the sexually "liberated". The end result was a serious moral wound to the Faith, a wound that continues to bleed. It is high time someone fight back against this spirit of anti-Christ.
But liberals are always unpleasant in their death throes, and just as they rage against conservatives in the political realm so too will they rage against them in the spiritual. There could well be a schism, a breaking apart of the Church. It can be argued that Francis is illigitmate anyway because Benedict was anointed Pope for life, and he was likely bullied into stepping down to put this moral progressive into the seat of St. Peter.
As the Fourth Century Saint Anthony the Abbott observed:
Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day's problems. When the Church and the world are one, then those days are at hand.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:53 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 705 words, total size 4 kb.
Iowa Road Crew Shovels Snow Flakes
Timothy Birdnow
An Iowa lawmaker has introduced a bill to cut off funding to public universities that are spending money coddling the poor offended little snowflakes who are tormented by the victory of mean old Donald Trump.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/11/16/lawmaker-wants-to-pull-funding-from-colleges-that-spend-money-on-coddling-students-over-trump/
Good! They have no right to force taxpayers to pony up money because some spoiled brats can't face reality. College is supposed to be the place where kids learn the hard facts of life, not a place to hide from them. I for one don't want to pay for it.
An Iowa lawmaker has introduced a bill to cut off funding to public universities that are spending money coddling the poor offended little snowflakes who are tormented by the victory of mean old Donald Trump.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/11/16/lawmaker-wants-to-pull-funding-from-colleges-that-spend-money-on-coddling-students-over-trump/
Good! They have no right to force taxpayers to pony up money because some spoiled brats can't face reality. College is supposed to be the place where kids learn the hard facts of life, not a place to hide from them. I for one don't want to pay for it.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:50 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.
November 16, 2016
Plot to Shut Conservative Mouths
Timothy Birdnow
Facebook., Google, Twitter, and other liberal information gatekeepers are upset that the alternative media undermined their preferred political outcome and so are going to ban a number of top websites.
From KMOV
"Melissa Zimdars, an assistant professor of communications at Merrimack College in North Andover, MA, published the list Monday that's currently being shared across social media by students, non-students and journalists alike.
more...
Facebook., Google, Twitter, and other liberal information gatekeepers are upset that the alternative media undermined their preferred political outcome and so are going to ban a number of top websites.
From KMOV
"Melissa Zimdars, an assistant professor of communications at Merrimack College in North Andover, MA, published the list Monday that's currently being shared across social media by students, non-students and journalists alike.
Zimdars says she was inspired to create the list for two reasons. The first was out of concern for the sources her students cited. The second was the constant sharing of these types of stories being shared on Facebook."
[...]
"The websites "rely on 'outrage' by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits."
Zimdars speaks on the theory called "confirmation bias," where a reader will seek information that coincides the most with one's beliefs and viewpoints.
"These kind of websites prey on this tendency and foster outrage, which drives us further apart rather than together - and makes the websites a great deal of money in the process," Zimdars said.
Zimdars said she was very careful about including "problematic sources from both sides of the aisle" because it is a problem for all political associations and ideologies.
The list comes as both Facebook and Google have announced that they are curbing the searchability of phony news across their platforms. Google said they would stop fake and misleading websites from utilizing the company's ad-selling software, stopping their revenue.
Twitter alsoannounced Tuesday that it would update its "mute" function for users to hide content they do not want to see."
End excerpt.
Here is the list thus far compiled by the good professor. It includes:
|
100PercentFedUp.com(2,3) |
||
|
21stCenturyWire.com(2, 3) |
||
|
Politicalo (1) |
||
|
ActivistPost.com(2, 3) |
*Website Removed* (temporarily) |
PoliticusUSA |
|
AnonNews.co(3) |
Private-eye.co.uk(includes 4) |
|
|
Associated Media Coverage |
||
|
Huzlers(4) |
*Website Removed* (temporarily) |
|
|
Being Liberal |
IfYouOnlyNews |
React 365 |
|
Indecision Forever (1) |
||
|
IJR(Independent Journal Review) |
RealNewsRightNow.com(1, 4) |
|
|
InfoWars (1, 2) |
||
|
Red State (3) |
||
|
Blue Nation Review(2,3) |
Reductress (4) |
|
|
Breitbart(2, 3) |
Inquisitr.com |
RileNews.com(1, 4) |
|
Satira Tribune |
||
|
Cap News(4) |
||
|
Liberal America |
The Blaze |
|
|
The Free Thought Project (3) |
||
|
Borowitz Report (4) |
||
|
The Onion (4) |
||
|
The Other 98% (3) |
||
|
The Reporterz |
||
|
The Stately Harold |
||
|
MSNBC.com.co (1) |
||
|
MSNBC.website (1) |
||
|
Naha Daily (4) |
||
|
National Report |
||
|
*Website Removed* (temporarily) |
||
|
CreamBMP.com(1) |
Twitchy.com(3) |
|
|
NC Scooper |
||
|
*Website Removed* (temporarily) |
||
|
*Website Removed* (temporarily) |
News Examiner |
|
|
US Uncut (3) |
||
|
Newslo (1, 4) |
||
|
NewsMutiny.com(1, 4) |
*Website Removed* (temporarily) |
|
|
Newswatch 28 |
||
|
Newswatch 33 |
Winning Democrats |
|
|
World Net Daily |
||
|
Now8News |
||
|
Empire Herald |
||
|
Empire News (1) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more...
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
03:53 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 41 kb.
Killing Bannon
Timothy Birdnow
Dana Loesch, who worked for Breitbart but now works for the #nevertrump Glenn Beck, has bad things to say about Steve Bannon:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/14/dana-loesch-has-a-warning-for-america-about-steve-bannon/
"I’ll say this. I like the idea of Reince Priebus being in there, and being a key figure in the Trump administration,†says Dana. "But I can’t say the same thing for Steve Bannon.â€
"Steve Bannon puts himself above everything,†she continued. "And I’ve worked with Steve, and I just don’t think this is a good fit for the country. Maybe it is for Steve Bannon, but it’s not a good fit for the country.â€
Dana went on to explain that this position is a position of service to the voters and to the country, and because of this, is not a good place for a man like Bannon to be.
"You cannot go into this position with vengeance in your heart,†says Dana. "You cannot go into this position with pettiness in your heart, and that therein would disqualify Steve Bannon.â€
End quote.
Dana left Breitbart under less than pleasant circumstances (and the St. Louis Tea Party the same way) and she may know things that we don't - or not. The point is, I think she has this exactly backwards in many ways; Reince Preibus is a RINO, an Establishment guy who had the good sense to stand with Trump. It was a calculated risk, but he took it. But that doesn't make him any less RINO-cerous.
Remember when Todd Akin was challenging "Air Claire" McCaskill? Akin made some foolish remarks to the media that got him in hot water, and when the GOP tried to force him out he refused to go. Preibus pulled the rug out from under Akin, refusing promised finanacial support because (I paraphrase) "we are looking for people who will put the country first" despite the fact that there wasn't really any good alternatives at that point and Preibus prefered to lose the Senate seat rather than swallow his RINO pride and support Akin. As a result of the ostracization of Akin and his loss of needed money McCaskill won by a very narrow margin - won a seat the GOP could easily have picked up. But John Danforth (the likely leak to Media Matters as Akin's comments had died a dull death weeks before) hated Akin and his RINO bonafides pushed Preibus and the other GOP Elites to disown Akin. Preibus was prepared to surrender a Senate seat to satisfy his party elites.
Preibus is an olive branch to the party bosses.
Meanwhile Bannon is there as hatchet man. Trump is going to need hatchet men or the media and Democrats will gnaw his entrails out. If Bannon is, as Dana says, vengeful and petty then he will ultimately have to answer to God for it, but God uses the sinner for his own ends and politics is full of vengeful and petty people. Certainly it is a boon to a Republican where he must fight an entire political party and an industry dedicated to vengence and pettiness.
Anyone remember Lee Atwater? He too could have been characterized as vengeful and petty, but his presence served the Reagan Revolution well. Atwater was no small part of the Conservative movement, and where Reagan was the smiling and cheerful leader Atwater did the dirty work. Somebody has to do the dirty work.
Now I know nothing about Steve Bannon except that the media hates him - which is a strong indication he's an effective political opponent. Dana Loesche may know more about him, and indeed may be right, but her criticisms here just do not justify throwing Bannon overboard. In my view they are resume' enhancers.
Timothy Birdnow
Dana Loesch, who worked for Breitbart but now works for the #nevertrump Glenn Beck, has bad things to say about Steve Bannon:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/14/dana-loesch-has-a-warning-for-america-about-steve-bannon/
"I’ll say this. I like the idea of Reince Priebus being in there, and being a key figure in the Trump administration,†says Dana. "But I can’t say the same thing for Steve Bannon.â€
"Steve Bannon puts himself above everything,†she continued. "And I’ve worked with Steve, and I just don’t think this is a good fit for the country. Maybe it is for Steve Bannon, but it’s not a good fit for the country.â€
Dana went on to explain that this position is a position of service to the voters and to the country, and because of this, is not a good place for a man like Bannon to be.
"You cannot go into this position with vengeance in your heart,†says Dana. "You cannot go into this position with pettiness in your heart, and that therein would disqualify Steve Bannon.â€
End quote.
Dana left Breitbart under less than pleasant circumstances (and the St. Louis Tea Party the same way) and she may know things that we don't - or not. The point is, I think she has this exactly backwards in many ways; Reince Preibus is a RINO, an Establishment guy who had the good sense to stand with Trump. It was a calculated risk, but he took it. But that doesn't make him any less RINO-cerous.
Remember when Todd Akin was challenging "Air Claire" McCaskill? Akin made some foolish remarks to the media that got him in hot water, and when the GOP tried to force him out he refused to go. Preibus pulled the rug out from under Akin, refusing promised finanacial support because (I paraphrase) "we are looking for people who will put the country first" despite the fact that there wasn't really any good alternatives at that point and Preibus prefered to lose the Senate seat rather than swallow his RINO pride and support Akin. As a result of the ostracization of Akin and his loss of needed money McCaskill won by a very narrow margin - won a seat the GOP could easily have picked up. But John Danforth (the likely leak to Media Matters as Akin's comments had died a dull death weeks before) hated Akin and his RINO bonafides pushed Preibus and the other GOP Elites to disown Akin. Preibus was prepared to surrender a Senate seat to satisfy his party elites.
Preibus is an olive branch to the party bosses.
Meanwhile Bannon is there as hatchet man. Trump is going to need hatchet men or the media and Democrats will gnaw his entrails out. If Bannon is, as Dana says, vengeful and petty then he will ultimately have to answer to God for it, but God uses the sinner for his own ends and politics is full of vengeful and petty people. Certainly it is a boon to a Republican where he must fight an entire political party and an industry dedicated to vengence and pettiness.
Anyone remember Lee Atwater? He too could have been characterized as vengeful and petty, but his presence served the Reagan Revolution well. Atwater was no small part of the Conservative movement, and where Reagan was the smiling and cheerful leader Atwater did the dirty work. Somebody has to do the dirty work.
Now I know nothing about Steve Bannon except that the media hates him - which is a strong indication he's an effective political opponent. Dana Loesche may know more about him, and indeed may be right, but her criticisms here just do not justify throwing Bannon overboard. In my view they are resume' enhancers.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:00 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 619 words, total size 4 kb.
Despicable Dana Milbank
Brian reads Dana Milbank the riot act (perhaps more literally than we would wish.)
Dear Dana Milbank,
In your Washington Post column of Nov. 14th you accuse Steve Bannon of Breitbart News of "...whipping up racial fears..." for showing videotape of a white Chicago man being assaulted after the election, apparently for voting Republican. How, sir, is this whipping up racial fears, unless the video has been doctored or fabricated, which no one has yet suggested? Would your newspaper suggest a policy of ignoring assaults committed by African-Americans against whites in hopes of calming racially troubled waters? Would your newspaper extend that policy to ignoring assaults committed by whites against African-Americans in hopes of calming racial difficulties? Perhaps I am confused here but I would like to hear a Washington Post columnist explain the paper's definition of "...whipping up racial fears".
Brian E. Birdnow
Dear Dana Milbank,
In your Washington Post column of Nov. 14th you accuse Steve Bannon of Breitbart News of "...whipping up racial fears..." for showing videotape of a white Chicago man being assaulted after the election, apparently for voting Republican. How, sir, is this whipping up racial fears, unless the video has been doctored or fabricated, which no one has yet suggested? Would your newspaper suggest a policy of ignoring assaults committed by African-Americans against whites in hopes of calming racially troubled waters? Would your newspaper extend that policy to ignoring assaults committed by whites against African-Americans in hopes of calming racial difficulties? Perhaps I am confused here but I would like to hear a Washington Post columnist explain the paper's definition of "...whipping up racial fears".
Brian E. Birdnow
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:58 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.
The Decline and Fall of the Democratic Party
Jonathan Dickinson
Some things have happened to the Democrat Party over the past few years that I've kept an interested eye on, things that have not received aa lot of publicity. Since 2010, while Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have been the faces of their Party, over 1600 elected seats nationwide have been turned from Democrat to Republican; from the federal level to state, and in local races like mayor and city council where party affiliation is identified. It's the biggest, most widespread transfer of political power in American history, and it's not even close.
Since Barack Obama was elected in 2008, up to and including the 2016 election, Democrats have lost 62 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, they've lost 13 governorships (from 29 down to 16), they used to control 62 of 99 state legislative chambers, and now control only 30. Twenty states share power between the parties in their legislatures, 24 states are completely controlled by Republicans, and only 5 are left where Democrats fully run the joint. But what have we been told for eight years?
Barack Obama is One of the Most Popular Presidents Ever!
You have to ask yourself, is Barack Obama - and are his policies, his agenda and his accomplishments - really all that popular, and if so, why has his agenda caused so much trouble for those in the national Democrat Party? A poll that came out on Monday said that he's got 57% popularity right now, but keep in mind that the same pollsters who three weeks before the election declared that Hillary Clinton was going to win by 12%, by14%, are the ones who conducted that poll on Monday too. And every presidential popularity poll since 2008.
Barack Obama's legacy has yet to be written but, while I'm sure Democrat historians (we have no other kind right now) will treat him quite well, the devastation that has happened in the Democrat Party while he's been in office (focusing like a laser on that very legacy) will be an important and historically significant part.
Some things have happened to the Democrat Party over the past few years that I've kept an interested eye on, things that have not received aa lot of publicity. Since 2010, while Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have been the faces of their Party, over 1600 elected seats nationwide have been turned from Democrat to Republican; from the federal level to state, and in local races like mayor and city council where party affiliation is identified. It's the biggest, most widespread transfer of political power in American history, and it's not even close.
Since Barack Obama was elected in 2008, up to and including the 2016 election, Democrats have lost 62 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, they've lost 13 governorships (from 29 down to 16), they used to control 62 of 99 state legislative chambers, and now control only 30. Twenty states share power between the parties in their legislatures, 24 states are completely controlled by Republicans, and only 5 are left where Democrats fully run the joint. But what have we been told for eight years?
Barack Obama is One of the Most Popular Presidents Ever!
You have to ask yourself, is Barack Obama - and are his policies, his agenda and his accomplishments - really all that popular, and if so, why has his agenda caused so much trouble for those in the national Democrat Party? A poll that came out on Monday said that he's got 57% popularity right now, but keep in mind that the same pollsters who three weeks before the election declared that Hillary Clinton was going to win by 12%, by14%, are the ones who conducted that poll on Monday too. And every presidential popularity poll since 2008.
Barack Obama's legacy has yet to be written but, while I'm sure Democrat historians (we have no other kind right now) will treat him quite well, the devastation that has happened in the Democrat Party while he's been in office (focusing like a laser on that very legacy) will be an important and historically significant part.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:22 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.
Pretend Politician
Dana Mathewson
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ed-klein-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-james-comey/2016/11/15/id/759037/
There
are instinctive politicians, and pretend politicians. Herself was the
second kind, and she hired the second kind. Didn't listen to her
husband, thank the Lord! If she had, last Tuesday might have had a
different outcome.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:21 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
The Popular Vote and the Nixon Strategy
Timothy Birdnow
My brother Brian and I were discussing the strange election results, and why we suspect foul play in the popular vote:
I think the fact the Democrats failed to make any gains on down ballot races suggests they actually lost the popular vote too; why would someone vote Hillary and not for the guy running for Governor, or Congress? Hillary's supposed lead in the popular vote is likely stolen votes.
Tim
Brian replied:
Just like 2000, when Bush was leading all night in the national popular vote, and then, voila, Gore inched ahead at 3:00 AM Central time. When they finished tallying the votes, minus the military and other absentee ballots, suddenly Gore was up by 537,000 votes nationwide. Does that sound fishy to you?!
Brian
And indeed we have seen this in a monotonously repetitive way through the years. Obama won in 2012 by winning over 100% in a number of Pennsylvania precincts, for instance, which pushed him over the top early in the election. And it is interesting to note that in this last election Virginia was going for Trump until the last counties came in - all of which were the Democrat strongholds outside of Washington. Funny how Democrats are such slow counters! Ditto Florida, where notoriously inept and liberal Broward county came in at the tail end; it's as if someone waits to see how many votes their candidate will need before submitting their tally.
I suspect the entire margin of popular votes going for Hillary were stolen. I believe this was Trump's night all around.
Sore, sore, sore losers! And they aren't going to grit their teeth and bear it, either. The plan is to deligitimize Trump by protesting and refusing to cooperate with him - and to go after all of his people. This was an old Democrat tactic used first against Richard Nixon; The Democrats and their media allies pursued first Spiro Agnew, setting the stage for the ultimate assault on Nixon himself. They tried this with Reagan too, going after men like James Watts, Borking Robert Bork, attacking numerous others in Reagan's camp. They want a feeling of corruption to taint the Presidency itself, and hopefully, as in the case of Richard Nixon, to taint the President personally. They could never have gotten to Nixon if they hadn't first gotten to his associates.
So when attacks come after Steve Bannon or, more importantly, Trump's children and son-in-law, they are following the strategy employed against Nixon, with the hopes of reaping the same reward. And having taken Chris Christie out of the equation in this manner they are emboldened to grab for the brass ring.
The fight has just begun.
My brother Brian and I were discussing the strange election results, and why we suspect foul play in the popular vote:
I think the fact the Democrats failed to make any gains on down ballot races suggests they actually lost the popular vote too; why would someone vote Hillary and not for the guy running for Governor, or Congress? Hillary's supposed lead in the popular vote is likely stolen votes.
Tim
Brian replied:
Just like 2000, when Bush was leading all night in the national popular vote, and then, voila, Gore inched ahead at 3:00 AM Central time. When they finished tallying the votes, minus the military and other absentee ballots, suddenly Gore was up by 537,000 votes nationwide. Does that sound fishy to you?!
Brian
And indeed we have seen this in a monotonously repetitive way through the years. Obama won in 2012 by winning over 100% in a number of Pennsylvania precincts, for instance, which pushed him over the top early in the election. And it is interesting to note that in this last election Virginia was going for Trump until the last counties came in - all of which were the Democrat strongholds outside of Washington. Funny how Democrats are such slow counters! Ditto Florida, where notoriously inept and liberal Broward county came in at the tail end; it's as if someone waits to see how many votes their candidate will need before submitting their tally.
I suspect the entire margin of popular votes going for Hillary were stolen. I believe this was Trump's night all around.
Sore, sore, sore losers! And they aren't going to grit their teeth and bear it, either. The plan is to deligitimize Trump by protesting and refusing to cooperate with him - and to go after all of his people. This was an old Democrat tactic used first against Richard Nixon; The Democrats and their media allies pursued first Spiro Agnew, setting the stage for the ultimate assault on Nixon himself. They tried this with Reagan too, going after men like James Watts, Borking Robert Bork, attacking numerous others in Reagan's camp. They want a feeling of corruption to taint the Presidency itself, and hopefully, as in the case of Richard Nixon, to taint the President personally. They could never have gotten to Nixon if they hadn't first gotten to his associates.
So when attacks come after Steve Bannon or, more importantly, Trump's children and son-in-law, they are following the strategy employed against Nixon, with the hopes of reaping the same reward. And having taken Chris Christie out of the equation in this manner they are emboldened to grab for the brass ring.
The fight has just begun.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:09 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.
Gotta Love this Guy
Wil Wirtanen
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:48 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.
November 15, 2016
Tech CEO fired after threatening Trump's life
Jack Kemp forwards this:
http://www.news965.com/news/news/local/tech-company-ceo-fired-after-threatening-kill-trum/ns8KJ/
Tech company CEO fired after threatening to kill Trump
By Joe Kelley
A California-based network security company has accepted the resignation of their CEO of he threatened to kill President-elect Donald Trump.
Matt Harrigan, the now FORMER CEO of PacketSled, went on a Facebook tirade on election night. The series of angry messages were part of a private thread that someone exposed through a series of screenshots.
In those posts, Harrigan made quite clear the intent to kill Mr. Trump:
* "I’m going to kill the president. Elect.â€
* "Bring it secret service.â€
* "Getting a sniper rifle and perching myself where it counts. Find a bedroom in the whitehouse that suits you motherf***er. I’ll find you.â€
* "In no uncertain terms, f*** you America. Seriously. F*** off.â€
Read the rest!
Jack Kemp forwards this:
http://www.news965.com/news/news/local/tech-company-ceo-fired-after-threatening-kill-trum/ns8KJ/
Tech company CEO fired after threatening to kill Trump
By Joe Kelley
A California-based network security company has accepted the resignation of their CEO of he threatened to kill President-elect Donald Trump.
Matt Harrigan, the now FORMER CEO of PacketSled, went on a Facebook tirade on election night. The series of angry messages were part of a private thread that someone exposed through a series of screenshots.
In those posts, Harrigan made quite clear the intent to kill Mr. Trump:
* "I’m going to kill the president. Elect.â€
* "Bring it secret service.â€
* "Getting a sniper rifle and perching myself where it counts. Find a bedroom in the whitehouse that suits you motherf***er. I’ll find you.â€
* "In no uncertain terms, f*** you America. Seriously. F*** off.â€
Read the rest!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:58 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
New Constitutional Amendments soon?
Jack Kemp
"Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments."
How about an amendment to end unionization of federal employees?
How about one to end anchor babies from becoming citizens?
Abortion would become an individual states' issue.
"Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments."
How about an amendment to end unionization of federal employees?
How about one to end anchor babies from becoming citizens?
Abortion would become an individual states' issue.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:57 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
Just Deserts; Guy who prosecuted Oregon bakers loses job
Jack Kemp
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/11/14/three-things-that-happened-on-election-night-that-you-probably-havent-heard-about-n2245579?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=
Oregon's Democratic Secretary of State went down to defeat, marking the first GOP victory in a statewide election in 14 years. More significantly, the loser of this race was known to many as the infamous bully who led the charge to fine a Christian-owned bakery $144,000 for declining to provide services to a same-sex wedding:
Avakian is the state bureaucrat who went after the business of the Christian bakers, Sweetcakes by Melissa in 2013. The owners, Melissa and Aaron Klein, refused to create a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Though the bakery served gay customers, the couple believed that by participating in the wedding ceremony, they were condoning the marriage, which conflicted with their Christian beliefs. Avakian's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) went after the Kleins, resulting in them being forced to close their business. Aaron Klein tells Independent Journal Review that the state garnished their bank accounts and assets to satisfy a $135,000 fine. In all, he says, the state took $144,000 from them. Oregon political analyst Rob Kremer told Independent Journal Review that Avakian campaigned on the idea that he would use the Secretary of State's office to further his progressive political agenda and — surprisingly — that turned off a lot of Oregon's liberal voters.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/11/14/three-things-that-happened-on-election-night-that-you-probably-havent-heard-about-n2245579?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=
Oregon's Democratic Secretary of State went down to defeat, marking the first GOP victory in a statewide election in 14 years. More significantly, the loser of this race was known to many as the infamous bully who led the charge to fine a Christian-owned bakery $144,000 for declining to provide services to a same-sex wedding:
Avakian is the state bureaucrat who went after the business of the Christian bakers, Sweetcakes by Melissa in 2013. The owners, Melissa and Aaron Klein, refused to create a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Though the bakery served gay customers, the couple believed that by participating in the wedding ceremony, they were condoning the marriage, which conflicted with their Christian beliefs. Avakian's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) went after the Kleins, resulting in them being forced to close their business. Aaron Klein tells Independent Journal Review that the state garnished their bank accounts and assets to satisfy a $135,000 fine. In all, he says, the state took $144,000 from them. Oregon political analyst Rob Kremer told Independent Journal Review that Avakian campaigned on the idea that he would use the Secretary of State's office to further his progressive political agenda and — surprisingly — that turned off a lot of Oregon's liberal voters.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:56 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.
Crybabies on the Bus II
Jack Kemp
I was at a bus stop this weekend and a guy with a Communications Workers of America (union) jacket was talking with someone who agreed with him about how awful the election was. Later, when the other guy left, the union worker said to me that "we haven't had a president who was for the regular guy in decades." Rather than remind him that the guy he probably voted for twice, Obama, was a Democrat and not a Republican - and that Hillary is a former member of the Board of Directors of Walmart (no union employees), I ignored him and got on the bus. I figured that the only thing we could convince one another of was that the other guy is crazy and ignorant.
I was at a bus stop this weekend and a guy with a Communications Workers of America (union) jacket was talking with someone who agreed with him about how awful the election was. Later, when the other guy left, the union worker said to me that "we haven't had a president who was for the regular guy in decades." Rather than remind him that the guy he probably voted for twice, Obama, was a Democrat and not a Republican - and that Hillary is a former member of the Board of Directors of Walmart (no union employees), I ignored him and got on the bus. I figured that the only thing we could convince one another of was that the other guy is crazy and ignorant.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:55 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
The Great Obstructionist
Dana Mathewson
Oh yeah? How's he plan to do that once he's out of office? Or does he plan on taking up permanent residence in the WH since Trump says he may not live there?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/15/fight-looms-between-fired-up-obama-and-trump-over-reg-roll-back.html
A "fired up†President Obama vowed Monday that Donald Trump will find it’s not so "easy†to roll back his myriad regulatory policies, previewing a long fight ahead between his allies and majority Republicans taking control next year.
Oh yeah? How's he plan to do that once he's out of office? Or does he plan on taking up permanent residence in the WH since Trump says he may not live there?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/15/fight-looms-between-fired-up-obama-and-trump-over-reg-roll-back.html
A "fired up†President Obama vowed Monday that Donald Trump will find it’s not so "easy†to roll back his myriad regulatory policies, previewing a long fight ahead between his allies and majority Republicans taking control next year.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:55 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
Gender Equality in Snow Removal Fails
Dana Mathewson
‘Gender-Equal Snow Ploughing’ Plunges Stockholm into Chaos
Breitbart News
Politicians in Stockholm said the policy of "gender-equal†snow removal has failed after the weather brought Sweden’s capital to a standstill last week, with hospitals reporting a fourfold increase in broken bones.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/14/gender-equal-snow-removal-policy/
‘Gender-Equal Snow Ploughing’ Plunges Stockholm into Chaos
Breitbart News
Politicians in Stockholm said the policy of "gender-equal†snow removal has failed after the weather brought Sweden’s capital to a standstill last week, with hospitals reporting a fourfold increase in broken bones.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/14/gender-equal-snow-removal-policy/
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:54 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
Bullishly Trump
Dana Mathewson
Don't you love it?
‘Trump Rally’ Continues as Dow Jones Hits Record High
Breitbart News
"U.S. stocks opened higher on Monday, with the Dow Jones Industrial average hitting a record high, as Donald Trump's unexpected victory in the U.S. presidential election continued to lift the market," Reuters reported on Monday morning. The Dow opened at 18,914.7
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/14/trump-rally-continues-dow-jones-hits-record-high/
Don't you love it?
‘Trump Rally’ Continues as Dow Jones Hits Record High
Breitbart News
"U.S. stocks opened higher on Monday, with the Dow Jones Industrial average hitting a record high, as Donald Trump's unexpected victory in the U.S. presidential election continued to lift the market," Reuters reported on Monday morning. The Dow opened at 18,914.7
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/14/trump-rally-continues-dow-jones-hits-record-high/
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:53 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
The Electoral College; a Cornerstone of the American System
By Timothy Birdnow
The recent election has caused quite a bit of consternation among many about the Electoral College, and a number of people are asking why we use this institution. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote yet Trump was elected President, and this has people wondering why we don't just elect a president based on the popular vote. In this essay I will attempt to explain the history and purpose of the Electoral College and hope to illustrate why it is an important institution in the American system.
First a little history.
The 13 colonies had enjoyed quite a bit of independence from the British government until the French and Indian War, and they had established their own systems of government, systems that were largely autonomous. Anger at the colonials for not paying what the British thought was their fair share and being less than enthusiastic about British soldiers high handed behavior during the war led to a tightening of control by the Crown, and this led t the Revolution. The Colonists understood the need for all the Colonies to act in unison, and so they created the Continental Congress to act as a provisional government. Upon independence they established a weak confederation under the Articles of Confederation. The 13 Colonies were intended to be largely independent states and so a parliamentary system such as that in Britain was unsuitable. But that didn't stop the Articles from trying to create such a system; there was a unicameral legislature which elected a president from among its members. The first President was thus John Hanson, who was elected in 1781.
(Hanson hated the job but the Articles provided no real way to replace him so he was forced to stay on.)
The Articles proved unworkable and a convention was held to update them - and this convention eventually rewrote the entire document as the Constitution.
New powers were granted to the central government - it could impose taxes, for instance, something forbidden by the Articles of Confederation. It would have the authority to raise an army (the States had to provide one to the Articles government.) It had stronger judicial authority over the States. Many of the more prominent citizenry were not at all happy about this new ingathering of power.
One of the biggest fears was the Presidency, which had the makings of a king or emperor should the wrong man gain power. The presidency was something that would require careful control lest the states become a vassal to the power of the central government.
So the power to choose the President was invested in each individual state. This does NOT mean the candidate would be chosen by a vote of the public; in point of fact the Framers thought that state legislatures would choose the slate of electors, but it was entirely up to each state to decide. The last state to use this alternate system was South Carolina, which held no popular vote for President in 1860.
(By the way, the Vice President was chosen the same way, and that made for some interesting politics as the runner up in electoral votes became President; Hillary Clinton would be Trumps veep! It was also thought that there would be multiple candidates for the Presidency, and that nobody would win a clear majority in the Electoral College, thus throwing the election into the House of Representatives where the future President would be chosen.)
But as I said, many people resisted the new Constitution. several of the drafters wrote a series of op-eds under the name Publius to explain the new Constitution and allay any fears. These became known as the Federalist Papers.
In Federalist #68 Alexander Hamilton explained the Electoral College:
"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
End quote.
The idea of the public making the final decision on who would hold such power was anathema to a nation that had just thrown off a monarchy; the Framers didn't want a tyranny by either the masses (democracy) or by a ruling elite (oligarchy). So they created this system whereby the People, or the People's representatives, chose men in the public eye, men with a good deal to lose, to make the decision. And at the time the Electors would be pledged to a certain candidate but would be free to change their vote after the deliberation.
Hamilton continues:
"...The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.. "
End quote.
In other words, they wanted a buffer. In fact, the Constitution is full of buffers to diffuse power. Strong state governments were intended to counterbalance the central government. A Senate was intended to counterbalance the more factional House of Representatives (and was itself not chosen by a vote of the People but by state legislatures until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1912), the Courts were dependent on the President to execute their judgments, and on Congress to get paid. At each step careful efforts were made to splinter the power of government, so as to avoid a new tyranny. The College of Electors was one more piece of Federalism, designed to prevent an ingathering of power.
There were other reasons for the creation of the Electoral College. One of the big problems that faced the fledgling United States was that the largest states - in the beginning that would have been Virginia - would completely dominate the Republic if "one man, one vote" were implemented. States such as Rhode Island would be powerless in the union they just joined, and the slave-holding South would control the direction of all future law. That was unacceptable, so the Framers gave every state two Senators to act balance out power (while assigning House members based on population) and they gave every state electoral votes equal to their representation in Congress. So a state with 8 Congressional Districts and Two Senators gets Ten Electoral votes. This compromise balanced the needs of the populous states with the needs of the smaller states, and thus encouraged Presidential candidates to appeal to the entire union rather than just the heavy centers of population. Without the EC all Presidents would come from one of the large centers of population, and they would only appeal to those centers needs and wants. An Iowa farmer wouldn't matter a bit to someone running for President under a popular vote system.
Frankly, the Constitution would never have been approved without this provision. No small state would join the Union to become nothing but a vassal to the larger states.
The Electoral College offers other benefits; it provides clear-cut winners when elections are too close to call, it empowers minority groups, it makes the President a truly national figure.
Criticisms of the Electoral College
The obvious criticism of the Electoral College is that on occasion a candidate can lose the popular vote but win the Presidency. That has happened 4 times and possibly a fifth (when the votes are counted) in this current election cycle. The losing side is understandably angry at this outcome, but it must be remembered that the system works this way for a reason, and one must ask if, had the resources been put into the most populous states, this would have been the outcome all along? Bear in mind that there is little reason to campaign in Nebraska if you are just seeking popular votes. It is impossible to tell what the outcome would be if America had a simple popular vote system. Also, as Hamilton pointed out, fraud is a not-inconsequential possibility the Framers were trying to avoid, and heavily populated areas are more prone to manipulation. In the election of 1960 Richard Nixon likely won but lost due to irregularities in the vote count in places like Cook County (Chicago). Nixon, in a rare display of altruism, chose not to contest that election (despite President Eisenhower encouraging him to do so) so John Kennedy was elected. Fraud is a real thing, despite claims to the contrary, and it makes the counting of the ballots take longer and be less certain. In a close election we may never fully know who won as the courts have to decide the veracity of the election precinct by precinct.
Also, many precincts do not bother to count overseas ballots if their number cannot materially effect the election, thus making the popular vote murkier. If America had a popular vote system every ballot would be critical - and overseas ballots are easily fooled with.
Be that as it may, it is understandable why many would want to eliminate the Electoral College. Problem is, they can't without a Constitutional amendment. Or not; there is a plan to get the states to agree to splitting their electoral votes based on the popular vote. This is an intriguing idea, but I doubt it will ever come to fruition. America has a winner-take-all system, meaning you get ALL of the votes when you win a state. Why?
Because no state wants to dilute it's impact on the election, and sending in ten electors who will split down the middle means you aren't having an impact. You wind up with the same problem the Founders encountered; the small states end up losing their importance.
Another problem is the winner-take-all system has given us the two party system, for instance, because only a well funded, well organized party can hope to win across the entire country. Regional parties had existed in the past in America, but they faded away as the country grew, and that because you cannot hope to win the Presidency by appealing to just a few states. It’s why the Federalist Party collapsed; they became confined to New England, and just didn't have a broad enough base.
And while there have been third parties that have had an impact in American history, few have survived long. The Electoral College system makes it necessary to campaign nation-wide, and that means having a broad enough appeal to get many disparate groups. The end result is that few single issue parties have fared well (except the Republicans, who were solely about abolishing slavery.)
Other criticisms of the Electoral College are that it is undemocratic (which is true, and exactly why the Founding Fathers created it; they knew pure democracy ended in dictatorships), and that it reduces the power of your vote under certain circumstances.
So, what would happen if we were to abolish the Electoral College system?
First, the President would always come from California or New York. There would be no point in nominating anyone else, since they could not possibly win.
Second, the major parties would fracture and we would see a pluralistic system, much like many parliamentary systems in other parts of the world. We would have coalition governments without the possibility of divorce that is built into the parliamentary system; no votes of no-confidence or whatnot. If gridlock in government is a problem now, it will be unbelievable under such a system. This will only empower the President, who will have to act via executive order to get anything done. The will give us an imperial Presidency. Of course, the President may not have any money to act, since Congress will be mired in endless squabbling...
And dissatisfaction with the rule of the biggest will metastasize, perhaps leading to the dissolution of the Republic. Like it or not the Electoral College is a cornerstone of the American system, and removing it would necessitate the abolition of the Constitution as we know it. We would have to create an entirely new form of government.
So we should all think carefully about this institution before we relegate it to the dustbin of history. America owes much of her success to the Electoral College, even if it has not always worked perfectly.
The recent election has caused quite a bit of consternation among many about the Electoral College, and a number of people are asking why we use this institution. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote yet Trump was elected President, and this has people wondering why we don't just elect a president based on the popular vote. In this essay I will attempt to explain the history and purpose of the Electoral College and hope to illustrate why it is an important institution in the American system.
First a little history.
The 13 colonies had enjoyed quite a bit of independence from the British government until the French and Indian War, and they had established their own systems of government, systems that were largely autonomous. Anger at the colonials for not paying what the British thought was their fair share and being less than enthusiastic about British soldiers high handed behavior during the war led to a tightening of control by the Crown, and this led t the Revolution. The Colonists understood the need for all the Colonies to act in unison, and so they created the Continental Congress to act as a provisional government. Upon independence they established a weak confederation under the Articles of Confederation. The 13 Colonies were intended to be largely independent states and so a parliamentary system such as that in Britain was unsuitable. But that didn't stop the Articles from trying to create such a system; there was a unicameral legislature which elected a president from among its members. The first President was thus John Hanson, who was elected in 1781.
(Hanson hated the job but the Articles provided no real way to replace him so he was forced to stay on.)
The Articles proved unworkable and a convention was held to update them - and this convention eventually rewrote the entire document as the Constitution.
New powers were granted to the central government - it could impose taxes, for instance, something forbidden by the Articles of Confederation. It would have the authority to raise an army (the States had to provide one to the Articles government.) It had stronger judicial authority over the States. Many of the more prominent citizenry were not at all happy about this new ingathering of power.
One of the biggest fears was the Presidency, which had the makings of a king or emperor should the wrong man gain power. The presidency was something that would require careful control lest the states become a vassal to the power of the central government.
So the power to choose the President was invested in each individual state. This does NOT mean the candidate would be chosen by a vote of the public; in point of fact the Framers thought that state legislatures would choose the slate of electors, but it was entirely up to each state to decide. The last state to use this alternate system was South Carolina, which held no popular vote for President in 1860.
(By the way, the Vice President was chosen the same way, and that made for some interesting politics as the runner up in electoral votes became President; Hillary Clinton would be Trumps veep! It was also thought that there would be multiple candidates for the Presidency, and that nobody would win a clear majority in the Electoral College, thus throwing the election into the House of Representatives where the future President would be chosen.)
But as I said, many people resisted the new Constitution. several of the drafters wrote a series of op-eds under the name Publius to explain the new Constitution and allay any fears. These became known as the Federalist Papers.
In Federalist #68 Alexander Hamilton explained the Electoral College:
"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
End quote.
The idea of the public making the final decision on who would hold such power was anathema to a nation that had just thrown off a monarchy; the Framers didn't want a tyranny by either the masses (democracy) or by a ruling elite (oligarchy). So they created this system whereby the People, or the People's representatives, chose men in the public eye, men with a good deal to lose, to make the decision. And at the time the Electors would be pledged to a certain candidate but would be free to change their vote after the deliberation.
Hamilton continues:
"...The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.. "
End quote.
In other words, they wanted a buffer. In fact, the Constitution is full of buffers to diffuse power. Strong state governments were intended to counterbalance the central government. A Senate was intended to counterbalance the more factional House of Representatives (and was itself not chosen by a vote of the People but by state legislatures until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1912), the Courts were dependent on the President to execute their judgments, and on Congress to get paid. At each step careful efforts were made to splinter the power of government, so as to avoid a new tyranny. The College of Electors was one more piece of Federalism, designed to prevent an ingathering of power.
There were other reasons for the creation of the Electoral College. One of the big problems that faced the fledgling United States was that the largest states - in the beginning that would have been Virginia - would completely dominate the Republic if "one man, one vote" were implemented. States such as Rhode Island would be powerless in the union they just joined, and the slave-holding South would control the direction of all future law. That was unacceptable, so the Framers gave every state two Senators to act balance out power (while assigning House members based on population) and they gave every state electoral votes equal to their representation in Congress. So a state with 8 Congressional Districts and Two Senators gets Ten Electoral votes. This compromise balanced the needs of the populous states with the needs of the smaller states, and thus encouraged Presidential candidates to appeal to the entire union rather than just the heavy centers of population. Without the EC all Presidents would come from one of the large centers of population, and they would only appeal to those centers needs and wants. An Iowa farmer wouldn't matter a bit to someone running for President under a popular vote system.
Frankly, the Constitution would never have been approved without this provision. No small state would join the Union to become nothing but a vassal to the larger states.
The Electoral College offers other benefits; it provides clear-cut winners when elections are too close to call, it empowers minority groups, it makes the President a truly national figure.
Criticisms of the Electoral College
The obvious criticism of the Electoral College is that on occasion a candidate can lose the popular vote but win the Presidency. That has happened 4 times and possibly a fifth (when the votes are counted) in this current election cycle. The losing side is understandably angry at this outcome, but it must be remembered that the system works this way for a reason, and one must ask if, had the resources been put into the most populous states, this would have been the outcome all along? Bear in mind that there is little reason to campaign in Nebraska if you are just seeking popular votes. It is impossible to tell what the outcome would be if America had a simple popular vote system. Also, as Hamilton pointed out, fraud is a not-inconsequential possibility the Framers were trying to avoid, and heavily populated areas are more prone to manipulation. In the election of 1960 Richard Nixon likely won but lost due to irregularities in the vote count in places like Cook County (Chicago). Nixon, in a rare display of altruism, chose not to contest that election (despite President Eisenhower encouraging him to do so) so John Kennedy was elected. Fraud is a real thing, despite claims to the contrary, and it makes the counting of the ballots take longer and be less certain. In a close election we may never fully know who won as the courts have to decide the veracity of the election precinct by precinct.
Also, many precincts do not bother to count overseas ballots if their number cannot materially effect the election, thus making the popular vote murkier. If America had a popular vote system every ballot would be critical - and overseas ballots are easily fooled with.
Be that as it may, it is understandable why many would want to eliminate the Electoral College. Problem is, they can't without a Constitutional amendment. Or not; there is a plan to get the states to agree to splitting their electoral votes based on the popular vote. This is an intriguing idea, but I doubt it will ever come to fruition. America has a winner-take-all system, meaning you get ALL of the votes when you win a state. Why?
Because no state wants to dilute it's impact on the election, and sending in ten electors who will split down the middle means you aren't having an impact. You wind up with the same problem the Founders encountered; the small states end up losing their importance.
Another problem is the winner-take-all system has given us the two party system, for instance, because only a well funded, well organized party can hope to win across the entire country. Regional parties had existed in the past in America, but they faded away as the country grew, and that because you cannot hope to win the Presidency by appealing to just a few states. It’s why the Federalist Party collapsed; they became confined to New England, and just didn't have a broad enough base.
And while there have been third parties that have had an impact in American history, few have survived long. The Electoral College system makes it necessary to campaign nation-wide, and that means having a broad enough appeal to get many disparate groups. The end result is that few single issue parties have fared well (except the Republicans, who were solely about abolishing slavery.)
Other criticisms of the Electoral College are that it is undemocratic (which is true, and exactly why the Founding Fathers created it; they knew pure democracy ended in dictatorships), and that it reduces the power of your vote under certain circumstances.
So, what would happen if we were to abolish the Electoral College system?
First, the President would always come from California or New York. There would be no point in nominating anyone else, since they could not possibly win.
Second, the major parties would fracture and we would see a pluralistic system, much like many parliamentary systems in other parts of the world. We would have coalition governments without the possibility of divorce that is built into the parliamentary system; no votes of no-confidence or whatnot. If gridlock in government is a problem now, it will be unbelievable under such a system. This will only empower the President, who will have to act via executive order to get anything done. The will give us an imperial Presidency. Of course, the President may not have any money to act, since Congress will be mired in endless squabbling...
And dissatisfaction with the rule of the biggest will metastasize, perhaps leading to the dissolution of the Republic. Like it or not the Electoral College is a cornerstone of the American system, and removing it would necessitate the abolition of the Constitution as we know it. We would have to create an entirely new form of government.
So we should all think carefully about this institution before we relegate it to the dustbin of history. America owes much of her success to the Electoral College, even if it has not always worked perfectly.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:41 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2276 words, total size 14 kb.
November 14, 2016
One Buck Trump
Timothy Birdnow
Trump will work for $1.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/13/confirmed-donald-trump-says-will-take-1-salary-president/
Wonder how that grabs the $15/hr. minimum wage activists?
Trump will work for $1.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/13/confirmed-donald-trump-says-will-take-1-salary-president/
Wonder how that grabs the $15/hr. minimum wage activists?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:32 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
561kb generated in CPU 0.2366, elapsed 0.9386 seconds.
53 queries taking 0.8465 seconds, 212 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
53 queries taking 0.8465 seconds, 212 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
