The Seattle Times is Silly. Electoral College will stay.

The Seattle Times newspaper has joined the whiny call of liberals all over the country in calling for the elimination of the Electoral College used to choose our nation’s President.

As part of their argument for this voter disenfranchisement of their reader’s the Time’s Editors erroneously point out that the need which created the Electoral College in our Constitution in 1789 no longer exist. They correctly point our that it was part of a compromise to encourage smaller agrarian southern states to join the union when they were afraid of being dominated by the more populous northern states. That need for preventing domination of smaller states by larger states still exists. The geography has changed. But look no further than the 2016 election map results to see how dominating urban centers could be in our Presidential elections if not for the Electoral College.

While red indicates the counties that voted for Trump and blue indicates the counties that voted for Clinton, Clinton won the popular vote.

Time magazine reported that Trump won 2649 counties nationwide, while Clinton won 503. Were the U.S. to rely on the popular vote for electing our President the vast majority of the country would be serfs to the oligarchs in New York and Los Angeles.

I believe in the individual rights and liberty granted me by the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. And I defend those rights. It’s amazing to me why Democrats continually want to give away those rights. They want to give away our 2nd Amendment Rights to have guns. They increasingly want to eliminate our first Amendment Rights to Free speech by suppressing what words we can say and what hats (MAGA) we can wear. They want to continue to defile the intent of the 14th Amendment by giving away our citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born within our borders who maintain citizenship in the countries from which their parents came. They want to eliminate first Amendment Rights to religion by ostracizing those who practice it, especially Christians.

And because they don’t like Donald Trump they want to eliminate the Presidential voting rights of 95% of the country.

The argument for a nationwide popular vote rests on the myth that such a change would allow for 1 person, 1 vote. It’s a myth because of the human nature of group think and self-interest. Blacks tend to vote one way. Whites tend to vote another way. Men tend to vote a certain way. Women, Jews, Christians, Catholics etc. etc. A national popular vote would put our nations Presidency strictly in the hands of urban voters. More specifically it would put the Presidency strictly in the hands of New York and Los Angeles.

Thank God the Founding Fathers found the compromises necessary to create the Constitution. A lot of people in Wyoming, Delaware, Montana, Alaska, North and South Dakota and Vermont might resent only having a single representative in the U.S. House while California has 53, New York has 27, Texas 36, Florida 27, Pennsylvania 18, Illinois 18. Only 6 states make up 41% of the House. 15 states have 3 or fewer House Representatives. More than half the states, 26, have a total of only 77 Representatives or less than 18 percent of the House’s 435 members. As such the more populous states have a gigantic voting advantage over the less populous states.

If this isn’t all about hating Trump and its about 1 man 1 vote why wouldn’t they argue against our bicameral Congress? Why not eliminate the Senate? After all the small states get 2 votes there, same as the more populous states. To properly understand the wisdom of the Founding Fathers you have to understand the balance they had to achieve in order to form a more perfect union.

Ultimately this is a silly argument because eliminating the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Convention and ratification of any Amendments by 3/4 of the states. Fortunately, as pointed out here, a majority of the states are small and even if such a Convention took place and even if an Amendment were adopted (both of which are highly unlikely) there are not enough idiots who think we live in a Democracy throughout the smaller states to commit political suicide and totally disenfranchise their voters. It won’t happen. And we can thank God for it.

Why Can’t We Realize SH*T Happens?

English: This is the semi-automatic civilian v...

20 people, 16 kids, are shot and killed in Connecticut. A horrible crime perpetrated by a mentally challenged young man who got hold of his mother’s legally bought and owned guns. Prior to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School the killer (we won’t mention his name here, ever) killed his mother at their home. And around the country voices are heard screaming, “We must do something! We can’t let this happen again”.  My question is, why? Why do we have to do something?

Sandy Hook Elementary Memorial

Sandy Hook Elementary Memorial

This country is a reactionary country and no politician has ever met a tragedy they wouldn’t or couldn’t exploit. But just like the bumper sticker I’m going say, “Shit Happens“.  I’m sorry if that sounds insensitive. I’m just as hurt and was emotionally troubled by the killing last December 14, 2012 as most people. It sickened me. I prayed and asked others to pray. The idea of all those young children being senselessly shot caused me tears and frustration. But ultimately as a country why scream, “Something must be done!” Why?

Why can’t we accept the fact that this killer had a mother who devoted her life to her son, tried the best she could but ultimately this 20-year-old kid was too much for her and was crazy and finally went off; and he did this horrible crime? Why can’t we accept the fact that we can’t stop every crazed killer from killing? If they want to kill and die they’re going to do so and we are not going to be able to stop them. Shit Happens.

The Connecticut killer stole legally purchased weapons from his mother. The Colorado movie theater killer bought his weapons after passing the legally required background check allowing him to do so. The Portland Mall shooter (from the same week as Sandy Hook) used a stolen weapon. No Assault Weapons Ban or criminal background check stopped these killers, nor would any new legislation along similar lines.

One of the photographs of Seung-Hui Cho that h...

One of the photographs of Seung-Hui Cho that he sent to NBC News on the day of the massacre

The Virginia Tech massacre of 2007 also involved a crazy man. Seung-Hui Cho (age 23) shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others. And he did it using hand guns which would never have been banned under the previous or currently proposed assault weapons ban. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994 lasted ten years before expiring. We’re not talking about a few months or a couple of years. The ban was in effect for ten years. And yet, nearly every study of it found it ineffective in deterring or diminishing gun violence.

FBI mugshot of Timothy McVeigh.

FBI mugshot of Timothy McVeigh.

Timothy McVeigh didn’t even need a gun to commit his horrible crime. He just needed a U-Haul truck and some fertilizer. McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City killed 168 people and injured 800 more. No gun was used. Until he detonated his improvised bomb no law had been broken. And no law should exist that prohibits the purchase of fertilizer and the renting of a U-Haul truck. We all just have to accept, Shit Happens.

One week after the Sandy Hook shooting the NRA responded by proposing that every school in this country should be staffed by an armed, trained, security guard. They were roundly criticized by the anti-gun crowd and do you know why? Those lobbying for a greater number of 2nd Amendment infringements said of the National Rifle Associations proposal that it would “cost too much”. Really? Cost too much? How’s that for hypocrisy? President Obama has said repeatedly, including this week during his Press Conference on Monday, that “If there is one step we can take to save one child’s life then we should do it”. I guess he should have added, “unless we’re talking about spending real money”.

The City of Chicago was sighted by the President as the model for gun laws throughout the United State‘s. Chicago led the nation last year with over 500 murders, most of them by guns. Democrats don’t really want to do anything about problems with guns. They just want to appear to a naive public that they are doing something, while they can wink and nod at the gun lobby who helps them pass useless and toothless legislation to placate that ignorant public.

The fact is tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre will happen and short of repealing the 2nd Amendment and taking away all our guns they’ll happen again. Shit Happens. But the 2nd Amendment won’t be repealed any time in my lifetime because too many Americans have guns, over 310 million guns are known to be owned in the U.S. by law-abiding citizens. It’s a practical impossibility to somehow think you’re going to get them all, or anything close to them all.

We need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Period. End of discussion. Find out how to do that and most Americans will shout “Hallelujah”.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

George Washington Knew What he was Talking About.

Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stearns, Wash...

Painting, 1856, by Junius Brutus Stearns, Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, 

In November 1787 General George Washington wrote a letter to his nephew Bushrod Washington, who would later become one of the early Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose of the letter was for the Father of our Country to explain his support for the yet to be adopted U.S. Constitution. Washington had served honorably as the President of the 1787 Constitutional Convention which crafted this great document.  In the letter the Great General wrote “No man is a warmer advocate for proper restraints, and wholesome checks in every department of government than I am; but neither my reasoning, nor my experience, has yet been able to discover the propriety of preventing men from doing good, because there is a possibility of their doing evil.” In so writing few men have ever more fully and properly espoused the arguments for individual liberty. In essence Washington was saying TRUST your fellow man.

In the 223 years since the adoption of our Nations most revered document people have forgotten that it was hardily debated, and strongly opposed. The mere presence of Washington and fellow American Revolutionary hero Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin 1767

Benjamin Franklin 1767

within the Convention was perhaps the greatest argument the Constitution’s advocate’s had for its adoption. And a strong argument it was. Franklin and Washington were held in near God-like reverence by early Americans. Since Franklin and Washington supported adoption of the Constitution as it was ultimately written its adoption became far easier.

Opponents feared the Constitution produced too strong a government, and gave the office of The President too much power. Opponents were aghast at the fact that the Constitution enabled the continuing existence of slavery. Having just fought an eight year bloody Revolutionary War for liberty and freedom from the tyranny of British rule, continuing to hold fellow human beings in forced servitude was an hypocritical conflict some members of the Convention couldn’t stomach. Opponents of the Constitution also objected to the absence of a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution granted, or acknowledged, the individual rights we all enjoy and fight over today. But they came after the Constitutions adoption in 1789. Ratification of 10 of the first 12 proposed Amendments (yes 12), The Bill of Rights, was finally ratified by the states more than 2 years later in December 1791.

Washington’s admonition to trust that good not evil would be the end result of a God-fearing and moral people speaks to today’s Democrats calls for increasing government regulations, laws, and controls on the American people. Democrats specifically say more control is necessary in order to prevent some from doing evil (in some form or another).

1795 - 1823

George Washington

Though Washington was responding to specific concerns about the fear he would become President and subsequently Monarch, and that slavery would continue, and more importantly to the opponents, that recognition of American citizen’s individual rights was not and would not be addressed; he said this is a good document, it should be adopted, and stopping its adoption didn’t make sense merely because some didn’t trust that what did ultimately come-to-pass would come-to-pass.

Were the Constitution not adopted and ratified the 13 original State’s would have split up to ultimately fall under the control of some more powerful and organized nation; perhaps Spain, France, and perhaps Britain again. Imagine. The Bill of Rights would never have been created and the shining light on the hill that the United States of America became for the rest of the world, would never have gotten started. And it would have failed because some didn’t trust their fellow Americans to do the right thing.

Where have we heard THAT before.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.