If Robert Kennedy, Jr was more like his father and less like Donald Trump I might agree but Junior still thinks the Kennedy name makes him legit without and true ideas or clear plans. Trump has longed to elevate his family name to that of the Kennedy name but long ago the country has tired of family Dynasties.
So I will respectfully disagree and the fact his entire family as thrown him under the bus and he has no agenda other than his last and first name makes him a pathetic candidate.
Hello, I got the sense that many people do not understand what and where in the Bible applies to the U.S. Founding. This is purely an academic discussion in which I will attribute the founding to the Bible. It is much more in depth than this post but I will try to get some critical connections. Most topics are themes that run through the Bible rather than a simple referenced verse. However, there are a few that can be summed up pretty quickly.
The Separation of Powers came from Isaiah 33:22. For the Lord is our judge (The Judicial Branch), the Lord is our Lawgiver (The Legislative Branch), The Lord is our King (The Executive Branch); he will save us.
Pursuit of Freedom and Liberty: The pursuit of Freedom and Liberty is a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible. Nonetheless, it is summed up in Galatians 5:1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Thus, freeing each man from the yoke of the law and to conduct himself in accordance with the Ten Commandments. That means we are to be principled people. "Now the Lord is the spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom", 2 Corinthians 3:17. The forefathers knew the Bible promoted freedom for man in many ways and viewed slavery as counter to the notion of liberty they promoted. "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death", Exo 21:16. Jefferson freed his slaves but because the social culture did not allow them to live free they were indentured to Jefferson. The forefathers knew a Civil War would be fought over slavery and made compromises, the infamous 3/5 vote clause, to establish the new nation.
Here is a curious quote from James Madison, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of Government, but upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the 10 commandments” Taken from from America's God and Country, William Federer.
Equality: One of the most famous lines in our founding documents centers on Equality. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…" One source for this statement in the Bible is "God is no respecter of persons" Acts 10:34. And another source is Deuteronomy 10:17 -"…who (GOD) shows no partiality nor takes a bribe". In short, God favors no one simply because of a station in life or advantage. James 2:1-4 illustrates that favoritism is forbidden: "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, Here’s a good seat for you. But you say to the poor man Stand there or Sit on the floor by my feet. Have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" The Constitution takes this notion of equality in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 and Amendment Fourteen then forbids any state from denying any person within their jurisdiction 'equal protection from the law'.
God Given Rights: Human rights have a founding in the Bible and come from God. Man is created in the image of God, Gen 1:26-27 and 9:6. Being created in such an image comes with dignity and rights to give levity and protect the image. These rights come from beginning with the Ten Commandments. Man also has the right to freedom, Exo 21:16 and Deut 24:7. There are other rights wrapped up in the Ten Commandments but that is a lengthy discussion. Here are some quick ones:
The right to secure existence. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's. Exodus 20:17
The right to property. Thou Shall Not Steal. Exodus 20:15
The right to life. Thou shall not kill in vain. Exodus 20:13
The right to fair treatment. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16
In brief, the Ten Commandments are written in a negative connotation. Scholars have rewritten the Ten Commandments is a positive connotation and in terms of a right. Rights have duties and responsibilities and usually protect society from the individual. However, more recently rights have flip flopped and protect the individual from society. For example, The Right to Life has a duty not to kill in vain and a responsibility to uphold the sanctity of life. This way everyone is alive and society is protected and thriving. Today, there seems to be a duty to kill in vain when an individual decides to do so. The responsibility is the individual's to select the method: assisted suicide, euthanasia, or abortion. Society cannot not say anything about the individual's decision.
The US founding was directly taken 100% from the Bible and there is a very extensive background on this that hardly no one knows or appreciates. Therefore, we struggle in our democracy with ancillary discussions and side shows that would become mute if people knew and appreciated our heritage.
Very good essay on where God "fits" in a free society. I knew our freedom was started by Godly men, and that Christianity was in the roots of our freedoms but you have delineated the subject further
Thanks. I have done research retracing the Forefathers thinking. They literally studied all the moral and ethical systems to include Islam, secular humanism, and even early socialism under the works of Jean-Jacque Rousseau. In fact, Jefferson was jailed in France because he backed their resistance and argue against their Godless Democracy. Ben Franklin negotiated his release. The Forefathers found that Christianity was the kindest and most favorable towards human life and governance. America's God and Country by William Federer is 844 pages of quotes about America's God. A great deal of the book are quotes from the Forefathers.
I have always voted. In instan es when all candidates are repulsi e to me, I VOTE FOR MYSELF leaving no doubt that I may have forgotten to vote for one of them. Lately given the poor choice of candidates I worry about the future of our country. If Biden and Trump are our choices, the future for te U item States of America is bleak indeed.
Thanks for the article, but can you explain to me why it matters who is selected once in 4 years when we don't have any effective mechanisms to hold the selected person/ the Deep State bureaucracy that actually runs Govt accountable for their actions?
E.g. We don't have a true gold standard any more (redeemable on demand a.k.a. accountability-on-demand) , so there are no restraints of financial discipline. Without financial discipline, even the most elementary restraints on economic actions are easily subverted.
Isn't it strange that the successful and affluent country of Rhodesia that did achieve a great deal of unity in diversity has been so vilified and destroyed by the very same forces that are doing their best to annihilate the west?
The Electoral College was established at time when the United States was sparsely populated beyond the Northeastern part of the continent and news was hard to come by. Even then, it might take weeks or months for news about candidates to reach people in those areas. The Electoral College was put in place to represent them. Today, there is no communication problem, news travels at lightning speed here and around the world. Yet, the Electoral process remains in place as it always has. In addition to that, members of the Electoral College are appointed by state officials who are elected, but the Electors themselves are NOT elected by the voting public. The ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes determine who the next president will be, NOT the votes of the American voters. And I read a few years ago when I was researching the EC, that a law was passed by congress that the electors do NOT have to vote in accordance with the popular votes of those they represent! It was very shocking for me to learn that the votes of the American people do not determine the "winner". The Electoral College does! So, on January 6th, the protesters were there to stop the electoral process. And remember George Bush Jr.? The fiasco in Florida where Dubya's BROTHER was governor? In that case, the Supreme Court settled it!
I disagree, it is more than a communication concern. The fact is the voters who live and thrive in rural communities have different work interests and attidues and values, than those who live in urban regions. Without the ELectoral College those "voices" are lost. Removing the Electoral College cetainly would yield a one-party system of left wing Democrats, and perhaps that is your wish.
Heavens no...not my wish. I agree totally with the point you make, but how do we ensure that the Electoral College is not subject to corruption and that they will vote in sync with the population they represent? Oversight of the EC is probably in order rather than elimination of it altogether. What are your thoughts about that?
While the Delegates of the Electoral College can vote differently than the people, the practice is they look to the way the people are voting and cast their vote consistent with the people's vote. This has been the norm for a very long time. The electoral college is still necessary despite its originating employment to give representation to all states based on population size.
The 06Jan2020 issue is enigmatic because of several obfuscating factors. First, Pence was not loyal to the Constitution as he claims. He wasn't even loyal to his boss. Pence was succumbed by political pressures. Later, Congress changed the law to support the action Pence claimed and took. Thus, affirming Trump's argument against Pence at the time. Second, the so-called insurrection was an Information Operation, Psyops, designed to make Trump look bad and stir up trouble. It had all the markers of Information Warfare. Third, the Democrats did not even try to hide the vote tampering, NOT voter fraud but vote tampering, during the election. When there precincts that have more votes than registered voters or 100% of the vote is for Biden something is wrong. Aside from stuffing ballot boxes using mules and deliberate interference in the casting and counting of votes, there was most likely electronic manipulation of the vote using man-in-the-middle methods. Electronic tampering is difficult to prove as the equipment is mobile used in a hit and run manner leaving no traces of the hit in the logs if properly conducted. One of the nine steps to hacking is to cleanup the logs. Unless the voting equipment is fully shielded, the telemetry is physical and shielded, and the power supplies are properly smoothed then they are highly vulnerable to a skilled hacker. The FCC monitors spectrum usage and can identify emanating frequency signals. Why this was not employed in the investigation I am not certain. There are other things that should have been done but were not which makes me think the vulnerabilities are deliberate.
I agree with you on all of this except one thing: I read a few years ago when I was researching the EC, that a law was passed by congress that the electors do NOT have to vote in accordance with the popular votes of those they represent. They are easily bought and paid for, I'm sure. Seems logical. I think it should be done away with. I also think we need to go back to hand-counted paper ballots like France did after major fraud was detected using mail-in votes and computers. Thank you for your response!
The Electoral College is necessary because the population centers would determine the Executive Branch without impactful representation of low population regions. The Electoral College normalizes the voting.
There are problems such as gerrymandering and issues of electors not having to vote consistent with their voting constituencies. I would need to research the latter to determine if it is a legal procedure, policy, bylaw of the Electoral College, or U.S. Law. If a legal procedure or policy of the Electoral College then it is not law and can be quickly and more easily corrected. If a Bylaw then the Electoral College will need convene and be convinced to change that Bylaw. If U.S. Law, I would like to know the Title, Section, and code. It could be a C.F.R. which in that case I would like to know the same.
Often people sling the jargon around that, "Its the Law." When in fact it often is not. For example, the law is retailers shall apply a 6% sales tax on the final sales totals. A legal procedure determines what a final sales total is and the process for applying the tax. Is it applied before rebates or after rebates. If mail in rebates are applied at all. What about loyalty program discounts, is the tax applying before of after these discounts. Policy may be something like one retailer does not offer military discounts but another does. Bylaws are internal and regulate a specific group, organization, or consortium.
At any rate, a well regulated and manage Electoral College is necessary to normalize the voting because the voting population is sporadically dispersed across the states. The electoral college processes, bylaws, and any US laws may need to be reformed. Changing Constitutional requirements is a near and daunting impossibility.
The annoyance with the Electoral College in recent years has led me to believe most people have never read that part of the Constitution or simply don't grasp why the EC was established. This, ironically, leads them to criticize it for doing precisely what it was created NOT to do.
The problem is not the Electoral College. The problem is that to prevent another Theodore Roosevelt/Progressive Party-like intrusion into the crony politics of the two major parties, states passed laws that hand all their EC votes over to whichever candidate won their state's popular vote. That's not how it was intended to work. As written, Electors were to be apportioned based on which candidate won each Congressional district in their respective states. Right now, only two states—Maine and Nebraska—do it properly.
Pause a moment and think. Do we really want to turn Presidential elections into prom-queen popularity contests where the winner is selected by having 1% more votes than the other candidate? Wouldn't that just make the grip of the oligarchs and plutocrats even tighter? Should the Executive go to whichever candidate has the money to hire the best PR people?
Why not, instead, go after our state legislatures to restore selection of Electoral College delegates the way they're supposed to be? Ranked-choice voting, yes. There's no question it's more democratic than the current system—there are reports on top of reports to prove it. The problem is that if Presidential elections turn into nothing but popularity contests, ranked-choice voting won't help.
As I type, Common Cause has persuaded the MN legislature to pass a law handing all their Electors over to the winner of the popular vote REGARDLESS OF HOW THE MAJORITY VOTED IN THAT STATE. Is someone going to try to tell me that's democracy at work? And MI is currently debating a similar law. I'm willing to wager they passed because everyone who voted for it has no idea how the Electoral College is supposed to work.
No matter how surprising it may be to some people, we have a republic, not a democracy. Rather mob rule i.e. democracy was the furtherst thing from the minds and intentions of the founding fathers.
The electoral college prevents:
1. California and New York from running the country i.e. the popular mass vote.
2. it is supposed to be apportioined to the respective candidates, not winner take all at the state level
3 it is a fail safe measure that allows elected representatives to thwart the temprorary insanity/stupidity of voters who might vote for a charlatan and demagogue.
In other words, our democratic republic consists of checks and balances to prevent not only mob rule, but also the massive federal behemoth we have now with the EC being part of the first no matter what the talking heads on CNN say.
You'll be delighted to hear, then, that the Common Cause effort to have states give their Electors to the winner of the popular vote is expected to continue. Those who understand why it's the furthest thing from being democratic will want to keep an eye on their legislatures, especially those in Michigan.
Excellent clarification. Well Done !!Laura Eisenhower should know a bit about all of this. Too bad her great grandfather did not spill the beans when he could have, but perhaps we were not ready for such truths.
Regarding donating money to politicians, I've personally donated a nominal amount of money. But I also donated to polar opposite candidates. This way when you search for me in fec.gov/data you will find a balanced view. We never know who will look us up and it's best to appear "moderate". \big_gulp!
Democracy, the elusive carrot at the end of the stick that whips you, with your master always promising more and delivering less, you are the slave to the system for which your consent was never obtained nor asked for. It was IMPOSED. We are DEBT SLAVES, Consumers, Useless Feeders Over -breeders to those who seek to wipe us out. To me you are all Divine Souls, worthy of running the planet, and you would do so in a far better way than we have seen from the Ivy League educated War Mongers who actually know very little about human nature, The spent so much time trying to control us that they have lost sight of reality -ours, not theirs. After all their homes were left standing on Maui, and their Castles never got hit in WW2,
When you look back at the Bush's, Biden, Reagan, etc. They all pushed for mor military because they were ordered to do so by the military industrial complex-PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE 5 STAR GENERALS behind the curtain. SO where is our DEMOCRACY, we have yet to experience it. We must drop the present system and from its ashes let a new system emerge based upon love, compassionate action, caring, and a complete dismantling of the WAR machine. We must look at all of humanity as our brothers and sisters and treat all others like we wish to be treated. Humanely and with common decency, not like animals as in Israel's dealing with Palestine, or North Korea, China etc. Every person is a SOVEREIGN BEING. Corporations are legal fictions that need to be dissolved. Let only real people run the world, not legal fictions. Not psychopaths and sociopaths propped up by money and party alliances fueled by corruption. Namaste. Edward William Case
The Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower spoke of was not led by Military flag officers but instead led by politicians who enjoyed the economic benefit of constant wars on foreign soil bolstering the US economy. The US strategy is to not fight wars on our soil but instead, fight the war on the enemies soil. Let him suffer the consequences of his actions.
The US cannot and should never dismantle the military, for the same reasons we should never defund the police. Are you aware that there are far more police in the US than people serving in the military? In fact, California alone has more police officers than there are people serving in all the military services combined.
Evil has a way of seeking the peaceful and law abiding people out. Thus, a national defense and self-defense is necessary. We have a natural right to bear arms to defend your right to be secure in your person, home, marriage, and life. The police are almost always after the fact and useful in upholding the rule of law.
Even the Bible does not promote pacifism. Yes, Christ did remark in Matthew 5:43-44 to love thy enemy but those are personal and contentious. He was referring to an errant belief at the time to love as one is love and hate as one is hated. The examples Christ gave were about insults (turn the cheek) and bullying. Christ did not speak about provocative belligerence (threats against life and limb) in those remarks. The commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' is referring to killing in vain and when written in a positive connotation becomes the Right to Life. If you have the Right to Life then conversely you have the Right to Defend that life. You have no rights if you are not willing to defend it and keep it. Rights come with duties and responsibilities. You have a duty not to kill in vain and responsibility to uphold the sanctity of life. Also, you have a duty to defend the image in you and a responsibility to give levity and dignity to that image. Americans do not die to set men free (that happens) but instead to live to set men free. The idea being to get the enemy to die for his cause so that we live to enjoy our cause. When confronted with evil threats to life and limb as well as the American way of life, defense is necessary after exhausting peaceful solutions and the harassment continues. Sometimes an immediate provocative response is necessary known as Stand Your Ground Laws and Castle Laws.
For the most part, yes. There are few brave souls in the R party, a couple in the D party, that chart different paths and policies than the mainstream of either party. But only a few.
Quote; "The United States is being torn apart by partisan agendas that have little to do with the daily lives of its citizens". More like torched and scorched to me. Leave no trace. Change all words.
If Robert Kennedy, Jr was more like his father and less like Donald Trump I might agree but Junior still thinks the Kennedy name makes him legit without and true ideas or clear plans. Trump has longed to elevate his family name to that of the Kennedy name but long ago the country has tired of family Dynasties.
So I will respectfully disagree and the fact his entire family as thrown him under the bus and he has no agenda other than his last and first name makes him a pathetic candidate.
Hello, I got the sense that many people do not understand what and where in the Bible applies to the U.S. Founding. This is purely an academic discussion in which I will attribute the founding to the Bible. It is much more in depth than this post but I will try to get some critical connections. Most topics are themes that run through the Bible rather than a simple referenced verse. However, there are a few that can be summed up pretty quickly.
The Separation of Powers came from Isaiah 33:22. For the Lord is our judge (The Judicial Branch), the Lord is our Lawgiver (The Legislative Branch), The Lord is our King (The Executive Branch); he will save us.
Pursuit of Freedom and Liberty: The pursuit of Freedom and Liberty is a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible. Nonetheless, it is summed up in Galatians 5:1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Thus, freeing each man from the yoke of the law and to conduct himself in accordance with the Ten Commandments. That means we are to be principled people. "Now the Lord is the spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom", 2 Corinthians 3:17. The forefathers knew the Bible promoted freedom for man in many ways and viewed slavery as counter to the notion of liberty they promoted. "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death", Exo 21:16. Jefferson freed his slaves but because the social culture did not allow them to live free they were indentured to Jefferson. The forefathers knew a Civil War would be fought over slavery and made compromises, the infamous 3/5 vote clause, to establish the new nation.
Here is a curious quote from James Madison, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of Government, but upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the 10 commandments” Taken from from America's God and Country, William Federer.
Equality: One of the most famous lines in our founding documents centers on Equality. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…" One source for this statement in the Bible is "God is no respecter of persons" Acts 10:34. And another source is Deuteronomy 10:17 -"…who (GOD) shows no partiality nor takes a bribe". In short, God favors no one simply because of a station in life or advantage. James 2:1-4 illustrates that favoritism is forbidden: "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, Here’s a good seat for you. But you say to the poor man Stand there or Sit on the floor by my feet. Have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" The Constitution takes this notion of equality in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 and Amendment Fourteen then forbids any state from denying any person within their jurisdiction 'equal protection from the law'.
God Given Rights: Human rights have a founding in the Bible and come from God. Man is created in the image of God, Gen 1:26-27 and 9:6. Being created in such an image comes with dignity and rights to give levity and protect the image. These rights come from beginning with the Ten Commandments. Man also has the right to freedom, Exo 21:16 and Deut 24:7. There are other rights wrapped up in the Ten Commandments but that is a lengthy discussion. Here are some quick ones:
The right to secure existence. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's. Exodus 20:17
The right to property. Thou Shall Not Steal. Exodus 20:15
The right to life. Thou shall not kill in vain. Exodus 20:13
The right to fair treatment. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16
In brief, the Ten Commandments are written in a negative connotation. Scholars have rewritten the Ten Commandments is a positive connotation and in terms of a right. Rights have duties and responsibilities and usually protect society from the individual. However, more recently rights have flip flopped and protect the individual from society. For example, The Right to Life has a duty not to kill in vain and a responsibility to uphold the sanctity of life. This way everyone is alive and society is protected and thriving. Today, there seems to be a duty to kill in vain when an individual decides to do so. The responsibility is the individual's to select the method: assisted suicide, euthanasia, or abortion. Society cannot not say anything about the individual's decision.
The US founding was directly taken 100% from the Bible and there is a very extensive background on this that hardly no one knows or appreciates. Therefore, we struggle in our democracy with ancillary discussions and side shows that would become mute if people knew and appreciated our heritage.
Very good essay on where God "fits" in a free society. I knew our freedom was started by Godly men, and that Christianity was in the roots of our freedoms but you have delineated the subject further
Thanks. I have done research retracing the Forefathers thinking. They literally studied all the moral and ethical systems to include Islam, secular humanism, and even early socialism under the works of Jean-Jacque Rousseau. In fact, Jefferson was jailed in France because he backed their resistance and argue against their Godless Democracy. Ben Franklin negotiated his release. The Forefathers found that Christianity was the kindest and most favorable towards human life and governance. America's God and Country by William Federer is 844 pages of quotes about America's God. A great deal of the book are quotes from the Forefathers.
Thank you, I love the picture!!! Meeting of the minds, or not...
I have always voted. In instan es when all candidates are repulsi e to me, I VOTE FOR MYSELF leaving no doubt that I may have forgotten to vote for one of them. Lately given the poor choice of candidates I worry about the future of our country. If Biden and Trump are our choices, the future for te U item States of America is bleak indeed.
Thanks for the article, but can you explain to me why it matters who is selected once in 4 years when we don't have any effective mechanisms to hold the selected person/ the Deep State bureaucracy that actually runs Govt accountable for their actions?
E.g. We don't have a true gold standard any more (redeemable on demand a.k.a. accountability-on-demand) , so there are no restraints of financial discipline. Without financial discipline, even the most elementary restraints on economic actions are easily subverted.
Isn't it strange that the successful and affluent country of Rhodesia that did achieve a great deal of unity in diversity has been so vilified and destroyed by the very same forces that are doing their best to annihilate the west?
The Electoral College was established at time when the United States was sparsely populated beyond the Northeastern part of the continent and news was hard to come by. Even then, it might take weeks or months for news about candidates to reach people in those areas. The Electoral College was put in place to represent them. Today, there is no communication problem, news travels at lightning speed here and around the world. Yet, the Electoral process remains in place as it always has. In addition to that, members of the Electoral College are appointed by state officials who are elected, but the Electors themselves are NOT elected by the voting public. The ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes determine who the next president will be, NOT the votes of the American voters. And I read a few years ago when I was researching the EC, that a law was passed by congress that the electors do NOT have to vote in accordance with the popular votes of those they represent! It was very shocking for me to learn that the votes of the American people do not determine the "winner". The Electoral College does! So, on January 6th, the protesters were there to stop the electoral process. And remember George Bush Jr.? The fiasco in Florida where Dubya's BROTHER was governor? In that case, the Supreme Court settled it!
I disagree, it is more than a communication concern. The fact is the voters who live and thrive in rural communities have different work interests and attidues and values, than those who live in urban regions. Without the ELectoral College those "voices" are lost. Removing the Electoral College cetainly would yield a one-party system of left wing Democrats, and perhaps that is your wish.
Heavens no...not my wish. I agree totally with the point you make, but how do we ensure that the Electoral College is not subject to corruption and that they will vote in sync with the population they represent? Oversight of the EC is probably in order rather than elimination of it altogether. What are your thoughts about that?
While the Delegates of the Electoral College can vote differently than the people, the practice is they look to the way the people are voting and cast their vote consistent with the people's vote. This has been the norm for a very long time. The electoral college is still necessary despite its originating employment to give representation to all states based on population size.
The 06Jan2020 issue is enigmatic because of several obfuscating factors. First, Pence was not loyal to the Constitution as he claims. He wasn't even loyal to his boss. Pence was succumbed by political pressures. Later, Congress changed the law to support the action Pence claimed and took. Thus, affirming Trump's argument against Pence at the time. Second, the so-called insurrection was an Information Operation, Psyops, designed to make Trump look bad and stir up trouble. It had all the markers of Information Warfare. Third, the Democrats did not even try to hide the vote tampering, NOT voter fraud but vote tampering, during the election. When there precincts that have more votes than registered voters or 100% of the vote is for Biden something is wrong. Aside from stuffing ballot boxes using mules and deliberate interference in the casting and counting of votes, there was most likely electronic manipulation of the vote using man-in-the-middle methods. Electronic tampering is difficult to prove as the equipment is mobile used in a hit and run manner leaving no traces of the hit in the logs if properly conducted. One of the nine steps to hacking is to cleanup the logs. Unless the voting equipment is fully shielded, the telemetry is physical and shielded, and the power supplies are properly smoothed then they are highly vulnerable to a skilled hacker. The FCC monitors spectrum usage and can identify emanating frequency signals. Why this was not employed in the investigation I am not certain. There are other things that should have been done but were not which makes me think the vulnerabilities are deliberate.
I agree with you on all of this except one thing: I read a few years ago when I was researching the EC, that a law was passed by congress that the electors do NOT have to vote in accordance with the popular votes of those they represent. They are easily bought and paid for, I'm sure. Seems logical. I think it should be done away with. I also think we need to go back to hand-counted paper ballots like France did after major fraud was detected using mail-in votes and computers. Thank you for your response!
The Electoral College is necessary because the population centers would determine the Executive Branch without impactful representation of low population regions. The Electoral College normalizes the voting.
There are problems such as gerrymandering and issues of electors not having to vote consistent with their voting constituencies. I would need to research the latter to determine if it is a legal procedure, policy, bylaw of the Electoral College, or U.S. Law. If a legal procedure or policy of the Electoral College then it is not law and can be quickly and more easily corrected. If a Bylaw then the Electoral College will need convene and be convinced to change that Bylaw. If U.S. Law, I would like to know the Title, Section, and code. It could be a C.F.R. which in that case I would like to know the same.
Often people sling the jargon around that, "Its the Law." When in fact it often is not. For example, the law is retailers shall apply a 6% sales tax on the final sales totals. A legal procedure determines what a final sales total is and the process for applying the tax. Is it applied before rebates or after rebates. If mail in rebates are applied at all. What about loyalty program discounts, is the tax applying before of after these discounts. Policy may be something like one retailer does not offer military discounts but another does. Bylaws are internal and regulate a specific group, organization, or consortium.
At any rate, a well regulated and manage Electoral College is necessary to normalize the voting because the voting population is sporadically dispersed across the states. The electoral college processes, bylaws, and any US laws may need to be reformed. Changing Constitutional requirements is a near and daunting impossibility.
Thank you. I understand better and I agree. Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with me. Much appreciated!
The annoyance with the Electoral College in recent years has led me to believe most people have never read that part of the Constitution or simply don't grasp why the EC was established. This, ironically, leads them to criticize it for doing precisely what it was created NOT to do.
The problem is not the Electoral College. The problem is that to prevent another Theodore Roosevelt/Progressive Party-like intrusion into the crony politics of the two major parties, states passed laws that hand all their EC votes over to whichever candidate won their state's popular vote. That's not how it was intended to work. As written, Electors were to be apportioned based on which candidate won each Congressional district in their respective states. Right now, only two states—Maine and Nebraska—do it properly.
Pause a moment and think. Do we really want to turn Presidential elections into prom-queen popularity contests where the winner is selected by having 1% more votes than the other candidate? Wouldn't that just make the grip of the oligarchs and plutocrats even tighter? Should the Executive go to whichever candidate has the money to hire the best PR people?
Why not, instead, go after our state legislatures to restore selection of Electoral College delegates the way they're supposed to be? Ranked-choice voting, yes. There's no question it's more democratic than the current system—there are reports on top of reports to prove it. The problem is that if Presidential elections turn into nothing but popularity contests, ranked-choice voting won't help.
As I type, Common Cause has persuaded the MN legislature to pass a law handing all their Electors over to the winner of the popular vote REGARDLESS OF HOW THE MAJORITY VOTED IN THAT STATE. Is someone going to try to tell me that's democracy at work? And MI is currently debating a similar law. I'm willing to wager they passed because everyone who voted for it has no idea how the Electoral College is supposed to work.
No matter how surprising it may be to some people, we have a republic, not a democracy. Rather mob rule i.e. democracy was the furtherst thing from the minds and intentions of the founding fathers.
The electoral college prevents:
1. California and New York from running the country i.e. the popular mass vote.
2. it is supposed to be apportioined to the respective candidates, not winner take all at the state level
3 it is a fail safe measure that allows elected representatives to thwart the temprorary insanity/stupidity of voters who might vote for a charlatan and demagogue.
In other words, our democratic republic consists of checks and balances to prevent not only mob rule, but also the massive federal behemoth we have now with the EC being part of the first no matter what the talking heads on CNN say.
You'll be delighted to hear, then, that the Common Cause effort to have states give their Electors to the winner of the popular vote is expected to continue. Those who understand why it's the furthest thing from being democratic will want to keep an eye on their legislatures, especially those in Michigan.
"As written, Electors were to be apportioned based on which candidate won each Congressional district in their respective states."
Maybe this should be argued for in the framework of "Diversity", "Inclusiveness" and "Equal" rights ? :)
For the most part, I prefer that you publish your own thoughts.
Geobub comments are superb and has it right as for the article poor, opinionated and narrow minded and a loss of direction for this country. Chuck
Thanks!
Excellent clarification. Well Done !!Laura Eisenhower should know a bit about all of this. Too bad her great grandfather did not spill the beans when he could have, but perhaps we were not ready for such truths.
He did warn us about the Military Industrial Complex, however, before he left office.
Regarding donating money to politicians, I've personally donated a nominal amount of money. But I also donated to polar opposite candidates. This way when you search for me in fec.gov/data you will find a balanced view. We never know who will look us up and it's best to appear "moderate". \big_gulp!
Dr's Malone, for some reason your post didn't come to my email box yesterday. Going to assume it was a power failure or glitch on my part.
Happy Friday to you warriors. Take care and keep up the fight!
Check the Junk Mail side of it. There are times for me it arrives there for the past two years.
Even when I correct it as "NOT JUNK". Only then will it arrive in the inbox. I blame liberal Gremlins for the detours. Hahah
that was the first place I looked.! But thank you for caring and cheers to you and yours. PEACE!
Democracy, the elusive carrot at the end of the stick that whips you, with your master always promising more and delivering less, you are the slave to the system for which your consent was never obtained nor asked for. It was IMPOSED. We are DEBT SLAVES, Consumers, Useless Feeders Over -breeders to those who seek to wipe us out. To me you are all Divine Souls, worthy of running the planet, and you would do so in a far better way than we have seen from the Ivy League educated War Mongers who actually know very little about human nature, The spent so much time trying to control us that they have lost sight of reality -ours, not theirs. After all their homes were left standing on Maui, and their Castles never got hit in WW2,
When you look back at the Bush's, Biden, Reagan, etc. They all pushed for mor military because they were ordered to do so by the military industrial complex-PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE 5 STAR GENERALS behind the curtain. SO where is our DEMOCRACY, we have yet to experience it. We must drop the present system and from its ashes let a new system emerge based upon love, compassionate action, caring, and a complete dismantling of the WAR machine. We must look at all of humanity as our brothers and sisters and treat all others like we wish to be treated. Humanely and with common decency, not like animals as in Israel's dealing with Palestine, or North Korea, China etc. Every person is a SOVEREIGN BEING. Corporations are legal fictions that need to be dissolved. Let only real people run the world, not legal fictions. Not psychopaths and sociopaths propped up by money and party alliances fueled by corruption. Namaste. Edward William Case
The Experiment may be facing the final sunset after the Corporations big round ups .
Round and round this world goes, where it stops, well.....nobody knows.
But I think cracks are showing. I 'd advocate ever more transparency to reveal this insanity.
The Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower spoke of was not led by Military flag officers but instead led by politicians who enjoyed the economic benefit of constant wars on foreign soil bolstering the US economy. The US strategy is to not fight wars on our soil but instead, fight the war on the enemies soil. Let him suffer the consequences of his actions.
The US cannot and should never dismantle the military, for the same reasons we should never defund the police. Are you aware that there are far more police in the US than people serving in the military? In fact, California alone has more police officers than there are people serving in all the military services combined.
Evil has a way of seeking the peaceful and law abiding people out. Thus, a national defense and self-defense is necessary. We have a natural right to bear arms to defend your right to be secure in your person, home, marriage, and life. The police are almost always after the fact and useful in upholding the rule of law.
Even the Bible does not promote pacifism. Yes, Christ did remark in Matthew 5:43-44 to love thy enemy but those are personal and contentious. He was referring to an errant belief at the time to love as one is love and hate as one is hated. The examples Christ gave were about insults (turn the cheek) and bullying. Christ did not speak about provocative belligerence (threats against life and limb) in those remarks. The commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' is referring to killing in vain and when written in a positive connotation becomes the Right to Life. If you have the Right to Life then conversely you have the Right to Defend that life. You have no rights if you are not willing to defend it and keep it. Rights come with duties and responsibilities. You have a duty not to kill in vain and responsibility to uphold the sanctity of life. Also, you have a duty to defend the image in you and a responsibility to give levity and dignity to that image. Americans do not die to set men free (that happens) but instead to live to set men free. The idea being to get the enemy to die for his cause so that we live to enjoy our cause. When confronted with evil threats to life and limb as well as the American way of life, defense is necessary after exhausting peaceful solutions and the harassment continues. Sometimes an immediate provocative response is necessary known as Stand Your Ground Laws and Castle Laws.
For the most part, yes. There are few brave souls in the R party, a couple in the D party, that chart different paths and policies than the mainstream of either party. But only a few.
Danny
Quote; "The United States is being torn apart by partisan agendas that have little to do with the daily lives of its citizens". More like torched and scorched to me. Leave no trace. Change all words.