Electoral College

Here is an essay that a new member of our blogging team, Christopher, wrote about the Electoral College … we welcome his insight ..

In order to understand the importance of the Electoral College in modern presidential elections in the United States a person must explicitly understand the nature of our nation. The United States operates under the same form of government today as it did in 1789 – it is a Republic. Despite the continuous rhetoric of progressives, the media, and Hollywood, the United States is not:

A democracy (For a good understanding of the workings of a true democracy I would recommend reading “Tides of War” by Steven Pressfield)
A democratic republic
A representative democracy

Just like the original Romans, citizens of the United States, “Americans”, live in a Republic.

In a republic the only important entities are its members. This means that in the United States, the only meaningful entities are the States. Each of the 50 States is a member – completely equal partners that collectively represent the body of the Republic. Each State is unique in many ways, including the types and numbers of people that reside within them. Since the States are the members of our Republic, the total number of people that reside within them is irrelevant. In other words, if one state had a total population of 10 people and another had 10 million both States would still be completely equal within the Republic.

This concept was critically important to the Founders of our nation. Even though they created the rules enshrined within the Constitution back in the late 1700s, they were all very worldly and educated men. As students of history they drew upon four millennia of examples of governments from other nations. From their studies they were keenly aware that humans would tend to concentrate population densities within cities while fewer individuals would choose to reside in “rural” areas. Yet they also knew that each grouping of people would prove critical to the health of the entire nation. The cities would provide the manufacturing and manpower while the rural areas would provide agriculture and raw resources needed to fuel industry. Without a balance of power between the groups that wasn’t based on total population our Founders knew that the larger groups of people would always trend towards becoming tyrannical. There could be no argument against this concern because every major historical government had gone down the same path.

The Founders weren’t ignorant of the need to grant more power (or representation) to larger population groups. Where there are more people, more representation is needed. That is why the U.S. House of Representatives is apportioned due to total population. Yet, there is a check on this power as well in the form of the Senate. No matter its population size, each member of the Republic (the States) gets an equal number of Senators (2). Always remember – in a republic the only thing that matters is the member. In our case the member is the State, large or small.

Now to importance of the Electoral College in presidential elections.

Our Founders believed that national politics for the nation were best determined by the local interests of each State. One proof of this belief is in how Senators were originally selected according the Constitution. While each Senator was given a six year term, they were appointed by the legislature of each State. In other words, it was the elected officials of each State who had the power to determine the people who were to serve in the Senate. This process made the governing bodies of each State directly responsible for shaping national politics. The selection process has since been changed by the 17th Amendment but that is irrelevant to any discussion regarding the electoral college.

Just like the processes of politics at the national level, our Founders knew that local politics within each State would be affected by that member’s governance structure. While the exact type of government changes from State to State, they all follow, more or less, the same structure of the national Republic. This means that each State’s government is made up of officials from both highly populated areas and rural locations as well. In some cases such as California, the major cities dominate State politics. However, in other States such as Nevada, Colorado, and Georgia, rural areas have enormous influence.

When a national presidential election is held the popular vote of each State is an indication but not a mandate to the winning party’s leadership of the will of the people. Population does have meaning because States are given a number of seats on the Electoral College commensurate with their overall populations. Within a State, the party that gets to choose its delegates to the Electoral College is determined by the overall results of the popular election. It then becomes an extremely important task for the leadership of these parties to pick which people will represent that State at the Electoral College because, get this, a member of the Electoral College may vote for whomever they choose! While tradition and recent history would dictate that members always vote for the candidate chosen by the popular vote of their home State, they are not bound to do so. Two examples that highlight this fact come from both the beginning of our nation and within the past 20 years. During the election for our second president, the person to succeed George Washington, Thomas Jefferson would have won the office if a single member of the Virginia delegation hadn’t “turned traitor” and voted for John Adams. Much later in 2000 when George Bush and Al Gore were fighting in court over the meaning of a “hanging chad”, members of the Gore campaign in league with the mainstream media were openly courting delegates from Republican States to vote for Gore. All under the auspices that Bush was trying to “steal the election” in Florida and that electing Gore was the “honorable” thing to do.

Despite decades of progressive conditioning, presidential elections are determined by the will of the States (the members) and NOT the will of the people. Most often these two are one and the same, but historically not always nor may it be again in the future. The whole purpose of the popular vote is to give guidance to the States so that the most suited people can be placed within the Electoral College. Our Founders, having read about the horrific failures of demagoguery and democracy within ancient Athens were convinced that something so important as determining the presidency could not be left up to the general populace. And given the level of ignorance within today’s electorate, those fears were rightly founded. They created the complex Electoral College system as a way to ensure that the best and brightest of the nation, as determined by the States, were empowered to make the final selection for president.

As long as the people of the United States are determined to live under a Republic as a form of government, the Electoral College remains the only way to ensure that structure can be maintained. The day that the Electoral College is dismantled, if indeed that day ever comes, is the day that 43 States become the hollow vassals to California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Posted in Christopher's Insights | 3 Comments

Quack & Waddle ..

Years ago, in the early days of TV, there was a very popular show called “What’s my line?”  There was a host moderator and a panel of very bright men and women who would ask pointed questions and then guess what line of endeavor  that the guest was in.  In a variable on the show the panel would be blindfolded and try to guess the name of guest celebrity who had distorted his/her voice.  To discover the size of an object the panel would ask, “is it bigger than a bread box?” or “is it plant, animal or mineral?” or in the case of a human guest, “are you male or female?” or “are you in acting? … politics?” and so on.  The panel was not often stumped and more often than not solved the problem.  It was great fun to watch and the panel was very impressive.  The show ran for a decade or more.

So let’s do our own version of “What’s my line?”

Is it plant, animal or mineral? … animal

Is it bigger than a bread box?  … smaller

Does it swim, fly or walk?  … yes

Aw, hmm … it must be an aquatic bird.  … yes

It has feathers? … yes  It has web feet?  … yes  It has a flat bill? … yes Does it waddle when it walks? … yes  IS IT A GOOSE? … no  IS IT A DUCK? … yes  If we had asked one more pertinent question … does it honk or quack?, we would have made the correct guess in the first place.

That didn’t take long, did it?  So now let’s try a guest celebrity with a line.

Hoodwinked Panelist:  Are you male or female?  … male

Are you an actor? … some people think so.  Is that your profession? … no  Do I routinely see you on TV … I assume so.  But you are not primarily an actor?  … I am not, although some people think I am.  Do you have your own TV show?  … some people think so.  Are you the host of a TV show? no  But you are often on TV? yes  Every day?  almost.  Does the TV press contact you?  yes  Do you contact the TV press?  yes  Are you in government?  yes.  Are you close to the President? yes  ARE YOU BARACK OBAMA? yes.

Easy, huh?  But could we have guessed his line.  We would have had to questioned him in greater depth.   Who is Barack Obama … what are his aims … what does he believe … why does he do the things that he does … what is his hope … his change.

Although the “Whats my line?” method is not objective, but subjective and leads us to guesswork, it is a surprisingly accurate way of making what my college professor used to call a “guesstimate.”  Let’s see what we can find out about Mr. Obama on “What’s my line?”

You are half white aren’t you?  … yes, my father was a native citizen of Kenya and my mother was raised in Kansas and Hawaii.  You were 4 years old when your parents were divorced?  yes  Do you remember your father?  … barely.  Is your father still living?  … after he returned to Kenya he was killed in an auto crash, supposedly while driving drunk.  Is your mother living? … no, she died of cancer in the 1990’s.  Your mother remarried? … yes, to an Indonesian Sunni Muslim, Lolo Soetoro.  Did you live in Indonesia? … from age 6 to 10.  Were you exposed to the Muslim religion?  … Indonesia is the most Islamic country on Earth.  Do you have siblings? yes, at least 8.  Why?  … Obama, who was already married when he married my mom, had 5 wives and sired 8 children; Soetoro and mom had my little sister.

OK, did you grow up in Indonesia? … just from the first to fourth grades.  Were you a citizen of Indonesia?  … my school records say so and that I am a Muslim.    Then you moved?  … yes, to live with my grandparents in Hawaii.  You went to school there?  … yes, through high school.  Did you learn from others in Hawaii? … yes, my grandfather was a socialist and his friend, Frank Marshall Davis, was a Communist;  they taught me a lot about politics.  Were your parents or grandparents wealthy?  My maternal grandfather was a furniture salesman,  my father was a Kenyan tribesman, Lolo Soetoro was a government surveyor … the only person that I associated with who had any access to any money was Frank Marshall Davis who had the backing of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA).  Yet you were admitted to the private and expensive Occidental College, where did you get the money?  … from scholarships.  You stated that when you arrived in New York City to attend Columbia that you were so broke that you had to sleep outside, but that same summer you went to Pakistan, is there a disconnect here? … none that I can see.  At that time the state department forbade travel to Pakistan, did you use a foreign passport? … no comment.  You then attended Harvard Law School after several years of community organizing, how did you finance that?  … no comment.

Later after Harvard, you moved to Chicago and met Valerie Jarrett your present principal advisor, a Marxist born in Iran, who introduced you to your wife Michelle?  … yes.  You and Michelle attended the church of Jeremiah Wright who denounced America in a sermon?  … Dr. Wright is a good person.  Your roommate at Columbia was a Muslim?  … yes.  When you started your political career, you did it from the home of North Vietnamese allied, Communist, Weather Underground terrorist bombers Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn?  … no comment.  On YouTube there is a large section, based mainly on photographic evidence, and because your father, Obama senior and your mother, only lived together until shortly after you were born, that your real father was Frank Marshall Davis; what say you to that?  …. no comment other than Frank was like an Uncle to me.  Your presidential campaign slogan was “Hope and Change”, how do you change a democratic republic;  by converting it to a socialist, fascist or communist society?  … no comment.  Why do you insist upon calling Islam a religion of peace when the religion’s bible, the Holy Koran, commands that believers convert, kill or enslave the “Infidel?”  …. no comment.  Since becoming President, wouldn’t you agree that your refusal to recognize terrorism inspired by those adhering to Islamic tenants,  the Islamic terrorism of ISIS,  your war against law and order … the police in particular, your utter disdain for the Congress, your blatant disregard for the Constitution as exemplified your illegal “Executive Orders,”  your all out attacks upon the life blood of our energy … coal and oil, and the attacks on our resource industries being fomented by the EPA, not to mention many other attacks upon the “domestic tranquillity” of our country have probably taken “Hope” out of the equation? … no comment.

So, let’s see:  Your mother was a ’60’s liberal which in those days probably meant that she was a “hippie,” she was raised by a socialist father whose good (maybe best) friend was a card-carrying Communist who wrote for Communist newspapers.  She let him characterize himself as your uncle.  He was your childhood friend.  You father was a Communist.  Your stepfather was a Communist.  You studied political science and therefore communism.  When you went into politics it was with the help and support of known Marxists and communists.  When you became President, your closest advisor was the Islamic influenced Marxist,  Valerie Jarrett.  Other advisors were like the Marxist David Axelrod and avowed Communist Van Jones who are prominent in press and media, but there are a myriad of others, not so famous, if we cared to point them out.  Your hatred for the traditional American way of life screams out at us.

Yep, for “What’s my line?” we have a quack, a waddle, a flat bill, feathers and probably web feet.  Are you: a socialist or communist or fascist or just a state-ist?  … nope, just a Progressive … a simple reformer.

Now, what about Islam:  Your name Barack Hussein Obama is Islamic.  Your father was a Muslim,  Your step father was a Muslim.  You lived in the most Islamic nation in the world during your formative years.  You learned the language.  You went to an Islamic school.  You put your religious preference as Islam on your petition to enter the school.  You went to the mosque and prayed.  Your college roommate was a Muslim.  You entered Pakistan, a Muslim country, when it was illegal for an American citizen to do so.   You must have used a foreign passport that would have shown you to be a citizen of Indonesia.  Your closest advisor may be an Iranian Muslim.  You bow down to Islamic dignitaries.  You tell us that Islam is peace when it is the greatest fomentor of terror of this new millennium.  You belonged to a church that preached hatred of America.  (Belonged to a christian church?  The “Holy Koran” tells that it is OK to lie to “infidels” during a jihad.)  You made a treaty with Iran, the foremost instigator of Islamic terrorism in the world, which you will not show to the Congress which purportedly guarantees that they will have an atomic bomb within a decade.

Once again we have the quack, waddle and all the other attributes for this ruptured duck … Are you a Muslim, closet Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer?  … although I seldom go to church, I am a devout Christian.

If Barack Obama was on “What’s my line?” the conclusive answer would be that he is a Muslim Communist.  If his vision, which he never explained, for “Hope and Change” is for a totalitarian regime in America, for that is what any form of socialism is, be it democratic socialism, fascism, communism, any other form of state-ism or for that matter Progressivism.  In order to make any of these ‘isms” work people must be compelled to toe the line.  The “State” like those ruled by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini or Mao, to name a few, always … always has to resort to force to maintain power.

We are not equal beings … you and I are unique.  The only equality that makes sense is equality before the government … equality under the law.  The law should be fair and equally applied.  Socialists would do to us what God and equality prohibits.  They would steal from one for the benefit of another.  If it is a crime for you to steal, then it is a crime for government to steal on your behalf.  For a large group to vote to steal from a smaller group is a larger crime than simple thievery because the government that was instituted to prevent thievery now enforces it.  Thou Shalt Not Steal is from the Ten Commandments.  Those commandments also tell us not to lie, tell untruths about others … bare false witness, or to plot to take that which belongs to another … not to covet.  It is the morality of the Ages.

So if Barack Obama hates our constitutional republic and pines for an Islamic Caliphate, then he is a traitor to his sacred oath of office … “I do solemnly swear (that I will) preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. … but to quote an old book title:


If Barack Obama truly does hold Islam and Socialism in higher esteem than the Constitution and freedom of religion, then most of the confusing and contradictory things that he does are suddenly explained to us the credulous … considering the trust that he has undertaken and oath that he has sworn to what would you call it?



Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment

The Dance of the Muslim Stoat


In a January 29, 2016 article for FrontpageMag, titled “The Hypnotic Dance of Death,” Russian expatriate Alexander Maistrovoy compares the hypnotic dance of a small Siberian carnivore to the “dance of death” that Islamists use to mesmerize western political leaders.

Maistrovoy describes a small Siberian animal, the stoat, which, although tiny by comparison to other animals, is quite adept at trapping and eating much larger and faster animals. He tells us that the stoat doesn’t stalk its prey, it doesn’t sit in ambush, and it doesn’t catch its prey on the run.  Instead, it performs a hypnotic dance of death in front of a rabbit or hare with “wriggles, acrobatic leaps and somersaults.”  The stoat dazzles its prey with its dance before gradually approaching it and sinking its teeth deep into its throat.

Maistrovoy asks, rhetorically, why the larger animals allow themselves to be bedazzled by the stoat’s deadly dance, a phenomenon that biologists are unable to explain. He compares it to the inability of sociologists or anthropologists to explain why it is that western political leaders seem unable to recognize the obvious danger that Islam represents for all non-Muslims.  He notes that, “Western elites have foredoomed their own people by means of somersaults and acrobatic tricks, and doomed them to the same fate of the unfortunate rabbit… ”

A December 17, 2015, letter from Senator James Lankford, Oklahoma’s first-term junior senator, is a perfect example of the head-in-the sand attitude of western political leaders. In response to my earlier letter, in which I requested a direct response from the senator, himself, as opposed to a generic staff-generated “Dear Constituent” response, Lankford began by thanking me for contacting him with my concerns about Islamic immigration.  Then he went on to explain that, “The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of all Americans to practice the religion they choose, or no religion, without fear of government interference or retribution.  He explained, “As a man of faith, I believe each American has the right to choose his or her own belief system.  While I do not practice the Muslim faith, I do not believe it is criminal or subversive to simply be a Muslim.”

He goes on to say, “Religious liberty is vital to a free nation. The First Amendment to the Constitution states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’  Disruption of religious liberty for one person endangers the liberties of us all.”

What the senator is suggesting, without actually putting it into words, is that all non-Muslim Americans should engage in a suicide pact. What he fails to recognize is that Islam is not a religion, subject to First Amendment protections, as we in western cultures understand the term.  Rather, it is a complete political, legal, economic, military, social, and cultural entity, posing as a religion.  Wherever we find them, its adherents refuse to assimilate into host country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as a separate and distinct culture, not subject to the laws of their host countries.  In order to accomplish their ends, they rely on anti-western directives of the Quran to preach the overthrow of their host governments, by force and violence if necessary.

The senator is apparently unaware that our country has always taken steps to protect itself from domination by foreign ideologies. For example, in reaction to the Communist threat of the Cold War era, the U.S. Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed the Communist Control Act of 1954.  Section 2 of the Act reads, in part, as follows:

“The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States… The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear, present, and continuing danger to the security of the United States…”

Under Section 3 of the Act, the Congress unequivocally stripped the Communist Party of any and all constitutional protections.   Section 3 reads as follows:

“The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof… by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated…” Is there any plausible reason why we should respond any differently to Islam and its radical adherents? 

Donald Trump has suggested that the United States call at least a temporary halt to all Muslim immigration until our Homeland Security officials have developed processes to adequately vet the flow of Muslim migrants. The reaction to his suggestion was swift and predictable.  Liberals, Democrats, and members of the mainstream media were quick to denounce him, while members of his own party called upon him to withdraw from the Republican presidential primaries.  House Speaker Paul Ryan took the unusual step of denouncing Trump, saying, “Normally, I do not comment on what’s going on in the presidential election.  I will take an exception today.  This is not conservatism.  What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it is not what this country stands for.”  So how will Senator Lankford and Speaker Ryan react when polls show that the people they represent overwhelmingly agree with Trump?  They fail to acknowledge that most Americans do not want Muslims living next door to them, nor do they want to increase our existing Muslim population.

One would think that members of Congress would have at least a minimal understanding of current immigration law. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 82-414 (the McCarran-Walter Act), Section 212(a), enacted two years prior to the Communist Control Act of 1954, provides no less than 31 criteria under which “classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.”

Included among these, Section 212(a)(19) bars entry to “any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.” Can all of the “refugees” now seeking asylum in the U.S. provide indisputable evidence that all of the information they have provided is factual and verifiable?  Section 212(a)(27) bars all aliens “who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally, to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.”

Section 212(a)(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens “who are anarchists, or who have at any time been members of or affiliated with any organization (such as Islam) that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This is precisely what Donald Trump has suggested, and it is precisely this law that Jimmy Carter cited in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, in which he invalidated the visas of all Iranians in the country and prohibited the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis.

Islam is the only “religious” movement on Earth that proposes to extend its dominion to every corner of the Earth by rape, murder, terror, and oppression. And since the 95% of Muslims who are described as either “moderate” or “un-radicalized” appear unwilling to play an active role in keeping their radicalized brethren in check, we have no long term alternative but to quarantine them… prohibiting them from residing anywhere among the civilized nations of the Earth.

In early September 2015, hundreds of Muslims rioted in the streets of Sidney, Australia, apparently in response to an anti-Islamic film. As wounded police officers were dragged to safety ahead of the advancing mob, the jihadists chanted, “Obama, Obama!  We love Obama!”

Yes, they love Obama and it’s pretty clear by now that he loves them. He is the closest thing we have to an Islamic “stoat” who has mesmerized our political leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike, into believing that we have little to fear from Muslim immigration.  That simply is not the case.  Our political leaders live each day inside protective cocoons, safe from the bloodlust of the Muslim muhajirs, whose sole purpose in life is to impose their brutal 7th century culture on 21st century Judeo-Christian nations.  And since our political leaders appear unwilling to do what is necessary to protect us, we will ultimately find ourselves taking matters into our own hands.

On September 12, 1683, the greatest Muslim assault on the Christian world was halted at the gates of Vienna by the combined forces of the Germans, the Poles, and the Lithuanians. Now, in the early years of the 21st century, the German government and other European governments have capitulated and the gates of Vienna have finally been breached.  And unless we defeat them in the deserts of the Middle East and in the streets of Europe in the months and years ahead, they will surely confront us at the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument. And in the streets of America.  If that comes to pass, western civilization will be lost forever.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College. He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.




Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment