Archive for the ‘Bill of Rights’ Category

In case Republicans haven’t figured it out, protesting at state capitol buildings is fun but it isn’t effective. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t protest Gov. Walz’s questionable decisions. What I’m saying is that GOP activists shouldn’t limit themselves to just protesting. Saturday afternoon, the DFL issued this statement criticizing Kurt Daudt:

Today, Minnesota House Republicans have made it clear that they would rather play politics than help Minnesotans get back to work. By pledging to block Governor Walz’s Local Jobs and Projects Plan, Representative Daudt and House Republicans are standing in the way of thousands of hardworking men and women in the construction industry building our critical infrastructure throughout the state. Once again, Minnesota Republicans say one thing and do another – they say they want to pass an infrastructure bill but when the time comes to actually get it done, they stick it to working people who desperately need these jobs.

Representative Daudt’s foolish temper tantrum goes against the advice of public health experts, the wishes of the vast majority of the American people, and the guidelines for reopening states issued by the President of Daudt’s own party. Representative Daudt’s gambling with the health and economic well-being of Minnesotans everywhere proves just how unfit Minnesota Republicans are to lead, especially during times of crisis.

It’s time for the gloves to come off. It’s time to expose the DFL as the party who shut down Minnesota’s economy based on a model put together by our DFL governor and Jan Malcolm, his clueless commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health and the U of M. That model was off by orders of magnitude. Gov. Walz tried frightening Minnesotans by telling us that 74,000 Minnesotans would die if we did nothing. That’s an outright lie. As of Saturday night, May 2, there were 6,228 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Minnesota and 395 deaths related to COVID-19 in Minnesota.

It’s time for Kurt Daudt and Paul Gazelka to step off the sidelines. They’re playing defense. They should play offense by filing a lawsuit that ends Emperor Walz’s reign of autocracy. Question the constitutional validity of Walz’s shelter-in-place orders. There’s nothing worthwhile about any of them. How many people lost their life savings thanks to Gov. Walz’s autocratic decisions? How many people lost their jobs thanks to Gov. Walz’s autocratic decisions?

It’s time to fight against Gov. Walz and the DFL’s autocratic rules. There’s nothing reasonable about how the DFL is infringing upon our rights to earn a living. Gov. Walz’s decisions has triggered a Minnesota deficit that’s likely to exceed $5,000,000,000 next year. That’s hiding the costs of draining the Rainy Day Fund and a multi-billion-dollar federal bailout.

Gov. Walz, if we save one life but destroy families upon families’ life savings, will it still be worth it? If you say yes to that question, then you’re a bleeping idiot.

Finally, We The People have the right to representation on the biggest issues of the day. When it comes to COVID-19 matters, we don’t have a say in any matters. That’s because Gov. Walz insists on making all of the decisions himself. That isn’t a constitutional republic. That’s a monarchy. 244 years ago, patriots stood up and fought against tyrants that insisted on controlling our lives. It’s time we started our own revolutionary war. This time, though, let’s use the courts instead of using muskets.

Apparently, Democrats think that the federal government is responsible for everything. That’s what you’d think if you just listened to Rep. Katharine Clark, a Democrat from Massachusetts. According to the article, Rep. Clark is quoted as saying “This is not how it is supposed to work. What we need is a coordinated federal system.”

The text of the Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Nowhere in the US Constitution does it talk about the executive branch to do the governors’ job. Each governor is expected to prepare for health crises. That includes stockpiling medical supplies like personal protection equipment, aka PPEs, ventilators, N95 masks, etc.

That also requires them to put in place plans on who does what when a crisis overwhelms the system. This is done in conjunction with the legislature so the best ideas become the official plan. After a crisis overwhelms a state, having a plan intact eliminates the confusion and speeds up the response because everything is laid out on an organizational chart.

Part of Sen. Schumer’s criticism of President Trump should actually be directed at Gov. Cuomo. Gov. Cuomo should’ve stockpiled ventilators after the H1N1 crisis. A wise administrator would’ve gotten out ahead of the situation. Nowhere in this article does Sen. Schumer talk about what Gov. Cuomo should do, though he spent plenty of time talking about what the federal government should be doing.

Sen. Schumer sent a letter to President Trump telling President Trump to put a senior military person in charge of supply chains. Here’s how President Trump responded to Sen. Schumer’s cheap shot:

Rear Admiral John Polowczyk is a professional by anyone’s estimation. Here’s just a smattering of information from his website:

Rear Adm. John Polowczyk is a native of Manhasset, Long Island, New York. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1987 with a Bachelor of Science in engineering. He holds a Master of Science in Contract and Acquisition Management from the Naval Postgraduate School and a Master of Science in National Resource Strategy from the National Defense University Industrial College of the Armed Forces. He also completed an executive education program at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.

I mean, he just has an advanced degree from an Ivy League school. He doesn’t sound qualified to me. (I’m just kidding.)

It’s best to think of this as asking which level of government handles which part of the crisis best. Once that’s figured out, federalism becomes simple.

With impeachment now temporarily out of sight and with the year coming to an end soon, it’s time to look forward at next year’s campaigns. The House Democrats’ impeachment farce has made them the laughingstock of swing district independent voters nationwide. When Speaker Pelosi enticed her freshmen to walk the plank vote to impeach President Trump, she enticed them to sign their political death warrant. This isn’t just about the 30 Democrats serving in Trump-won districts. It’s about Democrats serving in districts that Trump narrowly lost, too.

Somehow, Speaker Pelosi has morphed into a tragic figure, something Republicans didn’t think was possible. Still, that’s what happened when she trusted Adam Schiff’s and AOC’s political instincts more than her own political instincts. One side of her majority couldn’t wait to impeach President Trump. The other side of her majority wanted to legislate.

The bad news for Speaker Pelosi is that the 2 sides compromised and spent their time investigating, then impeaching President Trump. The worse news is that Chairmen Schiff and Nadler impeached President Trump without citing the high crime President Trump had committed. The public hearings in the House Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee were a total disaster for Democrats.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House Problem Solvers Caucus didn’t produce solutions to any of the pressing issues that need to be addressed. A Problem Solvers Caucus that doesn’t solve problems is essentially worthless. House Republicans will tell voters next fall that the way to get things done is through unified Republican government, with President Trump orchestrating the agenda from the Oval Office.

Republicans have President Trump to support. Further, Republicans have a positive, pro-growth agenda to support. The Democrats have don’t have a figure to rally around or a positive, pro-growth agenda to support. They have to defend Speaker Pelosi’s decision to withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate in an attempt to negotiate with Mitch McConnell.

Apolitical citizens can’t identify with Pelosi-style trickery. They think, rightly, that people who’ve been indicted (impeached) should get their day in court. In fact, the wise men that wrote the Constitution codified that principle into the Constitution. It’s part of the Constitution because they ratified the Sixth Amendment, which states this:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This isn’t a request. It’s a requirement. Since Speaker Pelosi declared the impeachment inquiry into existence, she’s been talking about the solemnity of this process, the requirement that the Constitution be protected and the need to protect our democracy:

While the Democrats are split on whether they should have travelled down the impeachment path, they’re united in that they won’t avoid the voters’ wrath for ignoring We The People‘s agenda. Democrats will feel the people’s wrath for pursuing the Resistance’s agenda of unlimited investigations and repetitive impeachments:

That Democrats would promote this type of division is the source for the Democrats’ 2020 demise.

Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, apparently has a bone to pick with President Trump. He’s apparently a prolific Twitter user, too. Zaid’s tweets might hurt his client.

According to Zaid’s tweets, he wants Trump out of office ASAP:


What’s laughable is what’s written on Mr. Zaid’s profile page:

Attorney handling cases involving national security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, & whistleblowing. Non-partisan

That should read “Hyper-partisan” instead of “Non-partisan.”

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

Only in Washington, DC, would a man who tweeted out such tweets be considered non-partisan.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, told Fox News that “The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game. It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”

As dense as Mr. Zaid is, apparently, Justin Amash is just as clueless:

“Actually, the Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser,” Hemingway tweeted. “Whistleblower protection has never — could never — mean that accusations are accepted without question. He of course must testify. To say otherwise is silly.”

Amash made this feeble argument against Hemingway:

“Yeah, at *trial* in a *criminal* prosecution,” Amash responded. “To say otherwise is silly. The best argument one could make is that it also should apply at trial in the Senate, despite not being a criminal prosecution, following impeachment in the House.”

Seriously? So a person can get impeached without the accuser having to testify? When did the USA’s judicial system become predicated on the notion that a person could get indicted by anonymous accusations?

It’s one thing to say that a person can get indicted without having their accuser cross-examined. While a criminal indictment isn’t fun, it’s a breeze compared with getting impeached. Getting impeached means that the president isn’t permitted to run the nation for the betterment of a nation. Does Mr. Amash think that the impeachment process not affect the entire nation?

If Mr. Amash thinks that, then he and Mr. Zaid deserve each other. They’re both losers if that’s the case.

If there’s anything that’s predictable, it’s that the Swamp protects its own. Nowhere is that more visible today than with the faux whistleblower, whose name (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) was disclosed by Donald Trump Jr. today. According to this article, “current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News” that “pressure is building on the spy agency’s director, Gina Haspel, to take a stand on the matter.”

Fine. Here’s a stand that these Swamp critters won’t like. Haspel should side with the Constitution. Specifically, Haspel should side with the Sixth Amendment, which says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

TRANSLATION: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to cross-examine his accusers, just like he has a right to accuse those accusers. The standard is that defendants shall have the right to confront their accusers. It doesn’t say that defendants might have that right if the wind is out of the west and if we’ve just had a full moon. It says that, in all situations, the defendant shall have that right. Predictably, the faux whistleblower’s attorney isn’t fond of the idea of his client’s name getting outed:

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s lead lawyer, has said that disclosure of his client’s name would deter future whistleblowers and he has threatened legal action against anyone who reveals the name. In a statement Wednesday, the whistleblower’s lawyers said “identifying any suspected name … will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm.”

First, it isn’t known if this person qualifies as a whistleblower. Just because his/her attorney says the person is a whistleblower doesn’t make it Gospel fact. Next, if the alleged whistleblower has a partisan political agenda that includes removing the president from office, then exposing the alleged whistleblower’s identity is a patriotic thing. I want people who gossip about things that they heard to not be protected. If this person didn’t abide by the laws of integrity, they don’t deserve protection.

The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, found the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to be credible. The description of events in the complaint, which has been public for weeks, has largely been confirmed by the transcript of Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president and by the publicly available testimony of other witnesses in recent weeks.

Michael Atkinson should testify when the House Impeachment Committee, chaired by hyperpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff, conducts public hearings. What made the whistleblower’s testimony credible? Was it the fact that none of it was first-hand information? Was it the fact that no court in the nation would’ve admitted this information into a court because it’s hearsay, which is inadmissible except in a few exceptions?

“Since the affiliation of the whistleblower is unacknowledged, it is up to the Acting DNI Joe McGuire to take a firm public and private stance against any effort to expose the whistleblower,” Brennan told NBC News. “Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul’s appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate.”

Based on what, Mr. Brennan? Why should partisan snitches peddling gossip get protection? This isn’t the case of a patriot saving the nation from a madman. This is the case of a renegade madman trying to save a nation from a patriot.

It isn’t often that Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul agree so I’d better record this for history’s sake:

Since Angie Craig and Dean Phillips announced that they supported impeachment proceedings, they’ve resisted making it a level playing field for Republicans and Democrats alike. Thus far, the ‘rules’ have been made up on the fly.

If that’s the Democrats’ definition of constitutional fairness, I don’t think many people will agree with Democrats. We’ve been told by Ms. Pelosi that this is a solemn matter that requires constant prayer and introspection. These hearings haven’t featured fairness, much less constitutional principles. Why haven’t Phillips and Craig insisted on investigative fairness? If this is supposed to be a time of solemnity, why hasn’t Schiff displayed fairness throughout?

Craig and Phillips flipped their opinions on whether to conduct an investigation into impeachment based on nothing. Let’s remember that these freshmen Democrats switched their opinions before the facts of the case changed. When Craig and Phillips switched to yes on the impeachment investigation, they didn’t switch their opinion on whether they think President Trump should be impeached.

Craig and Phillips switched their opinion the Friday before Queen Nancy declared the impeachment inquiry was official. Let’s not forget that the Trump-Zelensky transcript wasn’t released until the day after Queen Nancy’s declaration. Let’s not forget that the CIA snitch’s complaint wasn’t released until that Thursday. It’s fair to ask Craig and Phillips why they changed their minds.

Let’s ask this Democrat duo what rules must be put in place to ensure fairness and constitutional due process. Should President Trump’s attorneys have the right to confront President Trump’s accusers? If not, why not? If defendants’ representation are allowed to cross-examine witnesses, shouldn’t a man have that right if he’s about to potentially be thrown out of office?

Craig and Phillips haven’t pushed for a real impeachment vote. Apparently, they won’t vote for a real investigation. Apparently, Democrats are willing to vote for articles of impeachment without an investigation:

House Democrats believe they have the 217 votes needed to pass articles of impeachment against President Trump stemming from his Ukraine call, enough votes to impeach Trump and send articles to the Senate, even before their planned hearings or formal investigation.

That’s breathtakingly stunning. At least 40 of those Democrats just signed their political death certificate. It might reach higher; perhaps as much as 50-55 might get defeated. These Democrats just said that they’ll vote to undo an election without conducting an investigation. Remember this moment of solemnity?

That’s when Ms. Pelosi said “The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when the President says that “Article II says that I can do whatever I want.” It’s time Ms. Pelosi went to law school. She apparently hasn’t figured out that due process is a constitutional right. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi apparently doesn’t know that the right to a speedy trial doesn’t mean skipping the investigation.

Angie Craig and Dean Phillips are part of that 217 vote majority who will vote to impeach President Trump without investigating him. If that isn’t the definition of radicalism, then such a definition doesn’t exist. Craig and Phillips should join a lengthy list of radical Democrats who’ll need to look for work come New Years Day 2020.

Thursday night’s debate showed just how much contempt Democrat presidential candidates have for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Kamala Harris said that she’d issue an executive order to confiscate (my word, not hers) AR-15s and AK-47s if Congress didn’t act on banning assault weapons. I quoted from the DC v. Heller case in this post why she’d get slammed 9-0 in the Supreme Court:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Supreme Court has ruled that guns that are in common use are beyond Congress because they’re protected by the Second Amendment. Period.

Harris isn’t the only Democrat that thinks they’re above the Constitution. Robert Francis O’Rourke, the rich brat from El Paso, went on this tirade during the debate:

O’Rourke himself is just a punk who won’t be president. With that tirade, he took himself out of the running for being a serious challenger to Sen. Cornyn, too. That’s why I couldn’t care less about Robert Francis. What I’m bothered about was the applause he received from the audience at the Democrats’ debate in Houston. Those idiots are our neighbors, co-workers and friends.

This is what happens when our schools don’t emphasize civics in the classroom. Increasingly, our society thinks that they’re beyond the law and the Constitution. Chief of those that think that way is AOC. Harris apparently thinks that she can ignore the Constitution, too:

Harris responded, “I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say, yes, we can. And yes, we can. Because I’ll tell you something, the way that I think about this is, I’ve seen more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you. I have attended more police officer funerals than I care to tell you. I have hugged more mothers of homicide victims than I care to tell you. And the idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just — it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills.”

To Sen. Harris: I’ve read the Bill of Rights. It trumps the autopsy pictures that Sen. Harris has seen. It trumps the attempt to play on victims’ emotions, too.

Perhaps it’s just me but Sen. Harris sounded like she was high when she said “Hey, Joe, instead of saying ‘no, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘yes, we can.’ That laughter made her sound like she was high.

Whether Sen. Harris was high or not, she’s definitely wrong on the Constitution.

This article highlights the difference between Democrats debating the Second Amendment and the GOP debating it. Rich Lowry highlights Amy Klobuchar’s statement that “I look at [gun legislation] and I always say, ‘Does this hurt Uncle Dick in his deer stand?'” Lowry then notes ” That’s not the question, though. The Second Amendment isn’t fundamentally about Uncle Dick bagging deer, but about his ability to defend himself and his family.”

As a Minnesotan, I’ve gotten tired of listening to the DFL yapping about being pro-Second Amendment, then backing it up by saying that they’ve been hunting ducks or deer for decades. My reflexive reaction has consistently been that the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to guarantee Uncle Dick the right to hunt deer or ducks.

The text of the Second Amendment is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The exceptionally clear intent of the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to explicitly give people the right to protect their families and to explicitly tell militias that they had the right to secure our nation from invading nations and to provide for stopping tyrannical rulers.

If you think it’s insane to think that stopping tyrannical rulers is the stuff of conspiracy theories, think about this: during the last presidential election, the incumbent administration surveilled the opposition party’s nominee. That isn’t a theory. That’s a finding of fact in multiple congressional reports and the recent IG report.

It isn’t a stretch to think that the Deep State wouldn’t hesitate in undercutting an administration it didn’t like. Further, it isn’t a stretch to think that the Deep State would squash people that it thought was a threat to its way of conducting business.

As for the current debate about what to do about curbing gun violence, Sen. John Kennedy, (R-LA), has the right idea:

“Some of my colleagues argue that by further curtailing our Second Amendment rights, they can enhance public safety. Fine, the burden of proof is on them. I’m willing to have that debate, but I want the bacon without the sizzle — no speculation, no false comfort, no pulling stuff out of your orifices.”

This past week, Juan Williams’ statement was that the problem in the United States was the availability of guns. If that’s true, and I don’t think he is, then he’s got a major obstacle to pass. It’s called the Second Amendment. It’s one thing to rewrite a bill. It’s quite another to repeal a constitutional amendment and one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights. That requires 290 yes votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and 67 yes votes in the Senate. BTW, that only applies if the language is identical in both bills. If one sentence is different from one bill or the other, then a conference committee is required to eliminate the differences.

At that point, another daunting task faces the proposed repeal of the Second Amendment. After all that commotion in the U.S. House and Senate, it needs to be ratified by the state legislatures of 38 states. That means both houses of those state legislatures must vote to ratify the repeal of the Second Amendment. If the DFL House votes to ratify the repeal but the Republican Senate votes to stop the repeal, then that state wouldn’t ratify the repeal. If 12 other states did the same, the repeal of the Second Amendment fails.

It’s worth noting this from Rich Lowry’s article:

It is out of this historical soil that we got the Second Amendment. Guns would make it possible for Americans to defend themselves, and to defend their liberties. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist of “the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” This right can be used if necessary, per Hamilton, “against the usurpations of the national rulers.”

Here is the video of Sen. Kennedy’s interview on the Second Amendment:

This LTE highlights how society is increasingly rejecting objective truth. This paragraph is the perfect example of undisciplined thinking:

Our disagreements about how to run government, provide health care and offer housing and a sustainable living to families are only the tip of the iceberg. We disagree about how to best take care of both immigrants and citizens. None of the ways are the “right” way. We must understand that each is “a” way and that they all work with varying degrees of success. When we factor human kindness into the equation, or love of neighbor, we have more success.

Actually, the right way to deal with immigration is multi-faceted but eminently logical. It starts with the belief that each nation has the right to determine who gets into its nation.

In fact, it’s important to realize that nations have the affirmative obligation to protect its citizens. Providing for public safety is a core function of government. Implicit in the above paragraph is that there isn’t a wrong way. That’s foolish. The wrong way is the way that the Democrats’ presidential candidates are advocating for.

During the Democrats’ first round of presidential debates in Miami, FL, every Democrat presidential candidate lifted their hand, signaling that they thought the US should decriminalize illegal immigration. That’s insanity. That’s like sending out an invitation to the world that they can live in the US if they pay a fine.

Saying that all ways “work with varying degrees of success” is foolish. Closing immigration loopholes, tightening up asylum questions and sealing our border with physical walls will shut down illegal immigration to a trickle, stop human trafficking and restrict the flow of illegal drugs to the point of crippling the drug cartels’ profits.

Hearing Nancy Pelosi say that obeying the immigration laws that Congress has passed and that various presidents have signed “isn’t who we are” is sickening. If those signed laws that were passed by this nation’s elected leaders don’t represent our nation’s values, what does? After all, those laws weren’t shoved down our throats. They required compromise, wisdom and principles.

Democracy is that great American experiment in which we each have a say because we were created as equals, no matter our lot in life. Gerrymandering and restricting access to polling places (see our neighbors in North Dakota, for example) give lie to the experiment. True democracy makes it easier to vote and works toward equal representation, not the reverse.

Before the federal government existed and immediately after the Colonists won the Revolutionary War, France recognized each of the 13 former colonies as individual nation states. Today’s Democrats advocate for the opposite of the post-Revolutionary War United States by advocating for a system of government that doesn’t take into consideration what rural America, America’s heartland and blue collar America need but caters to the needs of coastal America and elitist America.

It’s important to stipulate that we don’t have a national government. We have a federal government. Theoretically at least, that federal government is there to serve the states. It isn’t there to tell the states what to do. The best way that the federal government can serve We The People is to let us make most decisions at the local or family level.

Yes, there really is a right way. Yes, there really is a wrong way. Though the Founding Fathers were imperfect, the Constitution that they put together was as close to perfect as any document in human history.

AOC and other Democrats hate the Electoral College because they either don’t understand history or they hate the system that the Founders gave us. I suspect that it’s a little of both. Determining presidential (notice that I didn’t say national) elections based on the popular vote would turn elections on their head. I’m writing this post to expose AOC’s foolish plan to eliminate the electoral college.

Our government in DC is called the federal government, not the national government. The federation that the federal government is built from is the federation of states. That’s why our nation is called the United States of America. Each state is sovereign. Without the states’ consent, there isn’t a federal government.

The purpose of the federal government is to represent the states. It wasn’t created to represent just the people. Had the Founding Fathers wanted that, they wouldn’t have formed the states. For instance, when the colonists won the Revolutionary War, France recognized each colony as a sovereign nation.

Apparently, AOC hasn’t grasped the concept that the United States is built on the foundation of each state being sovereign. That’s why each state’s laws are unique to that state. No 2 states have identical statutes on how they pay for education or economic development or whatever the subject. Each state has different laws on what constitutes manslaughter or sexual assault.

AOC’s desire to get rid of the Electoral College is partially because she wants to win more elections but it’s also partially because she doesn’t understand the foundation that the Constitution was built on. When the Revolutionary War ended, the federal government didn’t exist. The colonies eventually created the federal government out of convenience and necessity. It was convenient in the sense that the President was authorized to negotiate treaties and trade agreements rather than each state being required to negotiate separate trade deals. It was built out of necessity in that the settlers needed someone to provide for the national defense.

The Founding Fathers wanted the states to be the “laboratories of democracy.” They wrote the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to keep as much power as close to the families as possible. Here’s the text of the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here’s the text of the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AOC’s push for electing presidents by popular vote is understandable from a partisan standpoint. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst pointed this out:


In AOC’s mind, the Electoral College is — brace yourself — racist. Actually, it prevents some of the states who created the federal government from being represented by the federal government. That’s beyond foolish.

People pushing the national popular vote initiative aren’t interested in the US’s Heartland, aka Flyover Country. It’s time to push these idiots off the national stage. They aren’t rational human beings. Either that or they’re exceptionally despicable people.

The Electoral College isn’t outdated. It just isn’t wanted by progressive elitists who think of the men and women of America’s Heartland as unsophisticated rubes. That sounds frighteningly similar to Barack Obama when he said this: