Hillary Clinton

Mark Levin Discusses the Electoral College (Plus: WaPo)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is a portion of the article by ALLEN GUELZO and JAMES HULME Mark Levin was reading from:

…After last week’s results, we’re hearing a litany of complaints: the electoral college is undemocratic, the electoral college is unnecessary, the electoral college was invented to protect slavery — and the demand to push it down the memory hole.

All of which is strange because the electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism. The Founders who sat in the 1787 Constitutional Convention lavished an extraordinary amount of argument on the electoral college, and it was by no means one-sided. The great Pennsylvania jurist James Wilson believed that “if we are to establish a national Government,” the president should be chosen by a direct, national vote of the people. But wise old Roger Sherman of Connecticut replied that the president ought to be elected by Congress, since he feared that direct election of presidents by the people would lead to the creation of a monarchy. “An independence of the Executive [from] the supreme Legislature, was in his opinion the very essence of tyranny if there was any such thing.” Sherman was not trying to undermine the popular will, but to keep it from being distorted by a president who mistook popular election as a mandate for dictatorship.

Quarrels like this flared all through the convention, until, at almost the last minute, James Madison “took out a Pen and Paper, and sketched out a mode of Electing the President” by a “college” of “Electors … chosen by those of the people in each State, who shall have the Qualifications requisite.”

The Founders also designed the operation of the electoral college with unusual care. The portion of Article 2, Section 1, describing the electoral college is longer and descends to more detail than any other single issue the Constitution addresses. More than the federal judiciary — more than the war powers — more than taxation and representation. It prescribes in precise detail how “Each State shall appoint … a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”; how these electors “shall vote by Ballot” for a president and vice president; how they “shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate” the results of their balloting; how a tie vote must be resolved; what schedule the balloting should follow; and on and on.

Above all, the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Some historians have branded the electoral college this way because each state’s electoral votes are based on that “whole Number of Senators and Representatives” from each State, and in 1787 the number of those representatives was calculated on the basis of the infamous 3/5ths clause. But the electoral college merely reflected the numbers, not any bias about slavery (and in any case, the 3/5ths clause was not quite as proslavery a compromise as it seems, since Southern slaveholders wanted their slaves counted as 5/5ths for determining representation in Congress, and had to settle for a whittled-down fraction). As much as the abolitionists before the Civil War liked to talk about the “proslavery Constitution,” this was more of a rhetorical posture than a serious historical argument. And the simple fact remains, from the record of the Constitutional Convention’s proceedings (James Madison’s famous Notes), that the discussions of the electoral college and the method of electing a president never occur in the context of any of the convention’s two climactic debates over slavery.

If anything, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the electoral college. This, in large measure, was why Southern slaveholders stampeded to secession in 1860-61. They could do the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the electoral college would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.

[….]

Without the electoral college, there would be no effective brake on the number of “viable” presidential candidates. Abolish it, and it would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where, in a field of a dozen micro-candidates, the “winner” only needs 10 percent of the vote, and represents less than 5 percent of the electorate. And presidents elected with smaller and smaller pluralities will only aggravate the sense that an elected president is governing without a real electoral mandate.

The electoral college has been a major, even if poorly comprehended, mechanism for stability in a democracy, something which democracies are sometimes too flighty to appreciate. It may appear inefficient. But the Founders were not interested in efficiency; they were interested in securing “the blessings of liberty.” The electoral college is, in the end, not a bad device for securing that.

The Hillary Campaign Tried to Have Mika Brzezinski Censored!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Did the Hillary Presidential campaign prove Time Warner CEO, Jeff Bewkes’s, contention that the Democratic Party poses a greater threat to the First Amendment than from Donald Trump. (CNBC & DAILY CALLER)

(H-T YOUNG CONSERVATIVES)

On Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski reveals that after she had warned that the Clinton campaign needed to stop arrogantly assuming that the race was over, “NBC got a call from the campaign that I had done something that was journalistically inappropriate or something and needed to be pulled off the air.”

Hillary’s Hero Bans the Burka!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager discusses Merkel’s ban of the Burka and the Niqab while relating it to the cultural relativism of the left. Take note the German Chancellor is running for her office soon… “shoring up” votes in other words:

  • German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced she believes the full Islamic face veil or “burqa” has no place in her country and should be banned. Critics have pointed to her announcement, made at the Christian Democratic Party conference, as an attempt to shore up her conservative base after announcing she would seek another term as German leader…. (BREITBART)

Dennis Prager Takes Crazy Pills! (Leftist Radicalism in Education)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the article Dennis is reading from, via THE GLOBE AND MAIL:

…Until recently, Henry Parada was director of the School of Social Work at Ryerson University, Toronto’s big downtown commuter school. His career was going well and he got major research grants. Now he has stepped aside after a handful of students calling themselves the Black Liberation Collective accused him of “a violent act of anti-Blackness, misogyny and misogynoir.” What was this act? It seems that he left a meeting where a black female speaker was giving a talk. No one knows why.

What happened next won’t surprise anyone who has been tracking the steady rise of authoritarian illiberalism on the left. The Black Liberation Collective at Ryerson (which has perhaps the most diverse student body in the nation) issued an escalating series of rants demanding immediate action to address his crimes, along with institutional racism in general. Students disrupted faculty meetings. The administration has issued the standard non-response: Basically it values diversity and inclusion, and is looking into the matter.

But really, it doesn’t matter what Prof. Parada did. He’s a white man, and therefore guilty.

Here’s a partial list of what’s been happening on campus lately. At the University of Toronto, psychology professor Jordan Peterson is under attack – not least by his own administration – for refusing to use invented pronouns for transgender people. (Last year, Kenneth Zucker, a renowned U of T psychiatry professor, was fired from his position at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health because his treatment of transgender kids was deemed not radical enough.)

At Queen’s, a good-natured off-campus costume party blew up into a crisis over racism. Queen’s principal Daniel Woolf denounced the event on his blog as “the unacceptable misappropriation and stereotyping of numerous cultures,” and solemnly vowed yet again to improve diversity and inclusion on campus. In other news from Queen’s, the head of a student theatre group was forced to grovel after announcing a plan to cast a white female as the lead in Othello. “There is absolutely no excuse for making a casting decision that was oppressive and caused people of colour to feel as though they were invalid,” she apologized. The production was cancelled.

At many campuses, students routinely try to shut down controversial speakers because they might make someone feel queasy. When Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi’s defence lawyer, was invited to speak at Bishop’s University early next year and have her lecture live-streamed to other schools, one women’s studies major at St. Francis Xavier said that Ms. Henein’s talk was a “disservice to students who are victims of sexual violence.” To his credit, Bishop’s principal Michael Goldbloom wrote a rebuttal – an unusual act of academic courage these days.

How did we get here? Here’s a very short answer.

University campuses have always leaned a little left. But in the 1990s, as the previous generation of academics was replaced by baby boomers, they began to lean dramatically left. The humanities and social sciences were colonized by an unholy alliance of poststructuralists and Marxists – people who believe that Western civilization is a corrupt patriarchy that must be dismantled.

According to studies of U.S. universities, 18 per cent of social-sciences professors say they’re Marxists. Only 7 to 9 per cent identify as conservative. Leftism in the academy is a positive feedback loop – and we’re now well past the point where the radicals have taken over. Those who don’t agree just shut up. “There’s no question there’s an atmosphere of terror,” one (older, white, male) professor told me.

According to classic Marxist ideology, people’s degree of oppression is determined by their ancestry and class. Today’s identity politics simply swaps in race and gender. But the anti-liberal thinking is the same. When your goal is revolution, dissent becomes intolerable, and you have a moral licence to shut down free speech. As the very liberal Jonathan Chait wrote in New York magazine: “Liberalism believes in political rights for everybody, regardless of the content of their ideas. Marxists believe political rights belong only to those arguing on behalf of the oppressed.”

[…..]

Not so long ago, I thought this craziness would pass. Now I’m not so sure. When institutions cave in to radicals, their demands will only escalate….

The Donald’s “Fascist” Flag Tweet

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is how a friend puts the issue:

  • “My conservative friends on FB, once proud, loud and arrogant are now incredibly silent. Buyers remorse anyone? Trump’s mental illness is self-illuminated with each passing day. What a freak show…. A year in jail and loss of citizenship for the burning of the flag? Read the constitution much?”

Larry Elder uses some audio (which I add video to) to build up to the main point… and it is this: “HILLARY CLINTON PROPOSED ACTUAL LEGISLATION DOING THIS!” That bill (S.1911, The Flag Protection Act of 2005) was co-sponsored by Clinton, and proposed in part:

  • Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both. (SNOPES)

How Leftists Portray Reality

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager reads from an article by Neal Gabler via Bill Moyers’ website — who himself is a far leftist. In reading from the article, Dennis Prager gets ample opportunity to opine. I also included some video of violence done by Hillary/Bernie Sanders supporters [Leftists]. It is well known and documented that Hillary’s campaign may in fact have funded some of what you will see.

At any rate, enjoy the critique of progressivism.

The New York Times “Week In Hate” ~ What a Joke!

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”

Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;

  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.”

Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

(See the many myths and examples HERE that will elucidate the past and current history of the Democrat Party. As well as more recent examples HERE , HERE, and HERE.)

Drunk rude or merely rude people understood as racist, misogynistic, bigoted, etc., are said to be the “new norm.” The difference is that these real examples (many are hoaxes) are not leading politicians of a Party or media darlings. Here are just a few of the MANY examples:

➤ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a 2010 interview with journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in which he said that Barack Obama would be successful in his Presidential thanks to being “light-skinned” and speaking “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
➤ Vice President Joe Biden talking the entrepreneurial immigrants that enter our country and run 7-11’s and Dunkin Donuts: “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking!” || “I mean you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.”
➤ Who can forget when Al Sharpton reminded us how white people lived in caves and greek people were all gay: “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”
➤ That time President Obama caught his grandmother being a “typical white person,” whatever that means… “The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, you know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred in our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”
➤ Not to leave out old ‘Slick Willie,’ here’s a great quote about Obama from former President Bill Clinton, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee…”
➤ “(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” — Dan Rather

(See Larry Elder for more antithesis)

And don’t forget that for twenty-years Obama went to a church that celebrated black nationalism [racism] and sold sermons by and openly celebrated a cult leader (and cop killer), Louis Farrakhan, that teaches the white ethnicity was created on the island of Cyprus over 6,000 years ago and that black “gods” in UFO’s will come to earth to kill the white man (UFO Sermon || and, racist church of twenty years [could you imagine the outcry if Bush went to a similar church?])

Or Julian Castro being the 2012 Democratic National Convention keynote speaker who is part of a racist, socialist organization — La Raza — and who’s mother was the founder in her area (a chapter of): Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA).

Whatever happened to the days of people like Caesar Chavez, founder of the UFW, who saw these movements now fully integrated into the Democratic Party, as the racist organizations they are:

“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told Peter Matthiessen, the co-founder of the Paris Review, for a profile piece in The New Yorker in 1969. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there.”… ~ CHAVEZ

Or the many examples of black people targeting white people that are never reported as racist (just a handful of the many examples):

  1. Milwaukee madness: White people ‘hunted’ for attacks
  2. A Very Dangerous Game: Young blacks who attack people of other races for fun are getting no media attention
  3. Are Race Riots News?
  4. Hundreds of racist Black youths attack Whites at Wisconsin State Fair
  5. Cell Phone Video Shows Gang Of Black Teens Brutally Attack White Baltimore Man — Neighbor Says It Was Racial Attack!
  6. WATCH: Charlotte Riots Man Attacked in Parking Garage Beating Video
  7. Pair charged in explosive device at elementary school; planned to shoot cops, start race war
  8. Black Lives Matter ~ George Wallace Approved
  9. Black Lives Matter ~ Killer Political Cult
  10. Countering BLM and PC Language Police
  11. The Gruesome Story of a Murdered Tennessee Couple You May Have Never Heard – But That You Will Never Forget

The point being you will never see a section in the New York Times dedicated to these violent attacks against whites or examples of Democrats being bigoted (or if a Republican said them, racist).

In a recent conversation I was given examples of Christian terrorism. The First example being a British white supremacist who murdered a Parliament member named Jo Cox. First, this person was part of an anti-Christian racist cult who themselves are socialists… not capitalists. After I pointed this out I was quickly inundated with many links to articles. I tried to get this gal to button down on one of the “top-ten” lists she linked, entitled: “10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism.” You see, many people who are stuck in a closed minded position will do this “Gish Gallop” and merely post many links with no explanation or ability to pause and deal with specific examples in these long lists.

I tried to get her to engae on the article linked above. I took the first and eighth example to make my point. Quoting my portion from the discussion, as she merely responded with more links: “Mmmm, Salon, this will be fun. I am sure they note the 29,817 terrorist attacks since 9/11 done in the name of YHWH — ER — sorry, I meant Islamic attacks invoking ALLAH.”

I continue…

Shilley W., let us look at Salon’s #1 – the Murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi by Frank Roque.

SINCE YOU posted the link, you should be familiar with the cases and be ready to discuss them. (Which is why I link to posts on my site typically, because I am familiar with them.)

Do you have evidence that Roque is a Christian? I have studied racists cults in-depth, and a good portion of my over 5,000 books are geared to world religions, the occult, and cults.

(I see you just like to post links… this may be an opportunity for you to enter into dialogue.)

I would say that Salone failed in their prime example of #1 to connect this to Christianity at all.

Not to mention he — Roque — did not do this claiming the example of Jesus or YHWH as his source. LIKE Jonathan Dienst.

You are bringing up non-sequiturs.

Let me repeat that…

You are bringing up non-sequiturs.

After more links I continued…

Shilley W., so you are admitting the vacuousness of your first link to Salon?

You see, rather than get you on a “Gish Gallop,” I would rather you camp on a specific and see if your understanding matches with reality.

I will choose another example to see if Salon is telling the truth on Joseph Stack (#8):

The things said in his [Joseph Stack’s] manifesto seem to all be taken straight from Michael Moore movies?

✦ Anti-health care system = Sicko
✦ Anti-Capitalism = Capitalism, a Love Story
✦ IRS cronyism with businesses = Capitalism, a Love Story
✦ Anti-Bush = Fahrenheit 9/11
✦ Blames Big Corporations for job issues = The Big One

[…..]

…Joe Stack was a liberal. As I point out…

✦ Hated George W. Bush and his “cronies”
✦ Hated Big Pharma
✦ Hated Big Insurance
✦ Hated GM executives
✦ Hated organized religion
✦ Refers favorably to communism
✦ And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.

…read more…

You see… what is THOUGHT to be examples of “Christian” or “Right Wing” terrorism, are in fact the opposite.

If you find this info helpful, please consider donating any amount:


Putting Democracy At Risk – Dems v. GOP

Published by Papa Giorgio

You see, it is good if Democrats do it because they — in their elitist knowledge — know what is best for Democracy. When Republicans even suggest the same… they are evil DESTRUCTORS of the same Democracy:

(I love Mika’s headache!)

Maybe the Clinton’s [esp. HIllary] were just so shocked by the outcome that Democracy must be harmed? This surprising outcome on November 8th can be seen in this video purportedly showing the Clinton’s celebrating Hillary’s victory the morning of.

(Take note of Bill Clinton’s “inner school girl” coming out)

The Truth About the Trump Protests ~ Paul Watson

Published by Papa Giorgio

To be clear, I in no way support the crazy site InfoWars OR Prison Planet. Paul Watson surely holds some views as well that I reject wholeheartedly, and, that if followed to their logical conclusions, disrupt some meaning in his wonderful commentaries.

Backfiring Bigotry and Gay Voter Turnout for Trump Explained

Published by Papa Giorgio

Something occurred to me. If Donald Trump is such a horribly racist xenophobic misogynist bigot… why did Hillary Clinton sit front row at his wedding in 2005?

We know why Bill was there, *wink-wink*

Just a thought.

GATEWAY PUNDIT  flashes back to a 2000 interview in The Advocate, a gay journal, noting:

What would you do to combat antigay prejudice?

I like the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation. It would be simple. It would be straightforward. We don’t need to rewrite the laws currently on the books, although I do think we need to address hate-crimes legislation. But amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans — it’s only fair. I actually suggested this first, and now I see [Democratic presidential candidate] Bill Bradley has jumped on the bandwagon and is claiming the idea as his own. [A bill to amend the Civil Rights Act that would have included protections on the basis of sexual orientation was first introduced in the 1970s. — Ed.] Let me tell you something. Bradley is as phony as a $20 Rolex. He says the president ought to have big ideas. His last big idea — the 1986 [Tax Reform Act] — caused a recession and cost thousands of people their jobs. This guy destroyed the real estate industry, and he tanked the S&Ls. It was a disaster. Bradley walked out of the Senate like he was some kind of statesman declaring that “politics is broken.” The truth is, the voters were going to dump him in New Jersey. He walked away. Now he poses as some kind of outsider. What a joke. Bradley was a member of the Senate Finance Committee and a longtime part of Washington establishment. When I was $900 million and my companies were $9 billion in debt, I didn’t walk away. While others were declaring bankruptcy, I clawed my way back. My businesses are now bigger and better than ever.

Of course I would argue against this, but you get the point. Trump is a Blue Dog Democrat. Not a conservative at all.