Trump’s Coming Blowout Kickoff in Orlando

There’s still something going on with the Trump presidency that is lost on pollsters, the media and Democrats: The white-hot support of his base, which is definitely larger and perhaps hotter than in 2016.

This is demonstrated in rally after rally he holds, which all the talking heads told us was going to peter out. My gosh these people are wrong a lot. Consider what is happening in the lead up to Trump’s official campaign 2020 kickoff next week in Orlando.

The President tweeted Wednesday:

“Wow! Just got word that our June 18th, Tuesday, ANNOUNCEMENT in Orlando, Florida, already has 74,000 requests for a 20,000 seat Arena. With all of the big events that we have done, this ticket looks to be the ‘hottest’ of them all. See you in Florida!”

These numbers will overwhelm the Amway Center’s capacity of 20,000 for an NCAA basketball crowd maximum. Center stage concerts hold 19,700 while end-stage concerts hold about 16,000. Of course Trump frequently draws more than his venues can hold. He also did this as a candidate in the primaries. Are any Democrats anywhere near this? No. Polls do not capture this.

Orange County GOP Chair Charles Hart told the Orlando Sentinel that the extraordinary request-to-availability ratio for tickets to the kickoff is “epic even for his rallies…This is a phenomenally hot ticket.”

The campaign will likely set up outdoor screens for people to watch it live with others even if they cannot get inside Amway.

If the venue held 150,000 (and there is not such a thing) it’s possible Trump could fill it in Florida. Republican clubs from The Villages, Sarasota, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami and other Florida areas have chartered buses to take people to the event.

But here’s the deal. A lot more Republicans would go if they thought they could get in. Most are aware that the Amway Center is overwhelmed and have decided not to go to Orlando because their chances of getting in are minimal. Anecdotally, I was in a group where several said they were planning to go until they realized they probably could not get in. It’s a lot to go through just to stand outside and watch it on large screens.

And yet tens of thousands will likely do just that — knowing that is what they will be relegated to.

That displays a level of support you don’t see in any other candidates, or really in any candidates in recent memory. Obama at his peak did not come close to swamping major venues. And he was going to be the one to lower the seas!

In addition, it shows the level of organization now in the Florida Republican Party. The Party was split organizationally and financially between Rick Scott forces and the statewide party during Scott’s governorship. But that is all united now under Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida GOP Chair Joe Gruters. DeSantis and Gruters were both early and strong supporters of Trump.

The simple reality is that the state is more unified and organized than it was in 2016.

And that shows in events such as Trump’s kickoff. The President picked Florida because of course it is the largest swing state and critical to victory. But also because the Party is healthier, and no state has a stronger economy right now.

These are positive trends you will not see reported in the mainstream media or typically reflected in these broad national polls. But they can make all the difference in 2020.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Walls Work – and We Can Prove It!

I recently returned from our trip to Israel to see first-hand what walls can do to keep a country safe from war, invasion and worse.

What I saw was amazing.

Our Israeli hosts took us on a tour of their wall in the south that separates the Gaza Strip from Israel – a wall that has cut terrorists from crossing the border to kill Israeli farmers, families, and government officials by an astounding 99.9%.

I’ve posted a short video on our YouTube channel of our visit to the Gaza Wall – the kind of wall we need on our own border with Mexico to get our illegal immigration crisis under control.

As you may know, Hamas terrorists who control Gaza have been financed and armed by the radical Imams who run Iran – the same Imams who chant “Death to America” as a national motto.

In the north, my team and I went right up to Israel’s border with Lebanon where Hezbollah – also financed by Iran – has launched attacks and rockets into Israel’s interior. Thanks to Israel’s comprehensive border security systems, including the highly effective Iron Dome, these attacks that have been reduced to nearly zero.

Nevertheless, Hezbollah keeps digging attack tunnels under the border and Israel keeps finding and destroying these subterranean roadways into northern Israel communities. Through the direction of Iran, Hezbollah has exported their tunnel technology into Mexico and work with the drug cartels to tunnel into the United States!

This is not acceptable!

And now that the international community led by President Donald Trump has officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved our Embassy there, walls and strict control of border crossing points has shut down efforts by homicide bombers from inflicting terror on civilian populations.

Elites Have No One to Blame for Populism but Themselves

What is going on with the unending Brexit drama, the aftershocks of Donald Trump’s election, and the “yellow vests” protests in France?

What drives the growing estrangement of southern and eastern Europe from the European Union establishment?

What fuels the anti-EU themes of recent European elections and the stunning recent Australian re-election of conservatives?

Put simply, the middle classes are revolting against Western managerial elites. The latter group includes professional politicians, entrenched bureaucrats, condescending academics, corporate phonies, and propagandistic journalists.

What are the popular gripes against them?

One, illegal immigration and open borders have led to chaos. Lax immigration policies have taxed social services and fueled multicultural identity politics, often to the benefit of boutique leftist political agendas.

Two, globalization enriched the cosmopolitan elites who found worldwide markets for their various services. New global markets and commerce meant Western nations outsourced, offshored, and ignored their own industries and manufacturing (or anything dependent on muscular labor that could be replaced by cheaper workers abroad).

Three, unelected bureaucrats multiplied and vastly increased their power over private citizens. The targeted middle classes lacked the resources to fight back against the royal armies of tenured regulators, planners, auditors, inspectors, and adjustors who could not be fired and were never accountable.

Four, the new global media reached billions and indoctrinated rather than reported.

Five, academia became politicized as a shrill agent of cultural transformation rather than focusing on education—while charging more for less learning.

Six, utopian social planning increased housing, energy, and transportation costs.

One common gripe framed all these diverse issues: The wealthy had the means and influence not to be bothered by higher taxes and fees or to avoid them altogether. Not so much the middle classes, who lacked the clout of the virtue-signaling rich and the romance of the distant poor.

In other words, elites never suffered the firsthand consequences of their own ideological fiats.

Green policies were aimed at raising fees on, and restricting the use of, carbon-based fuels. But proposed green belt-tightening among hoi polloi was not matched by a cutback in second and third homes, overseas vacations, luxury cars, private jets, and high-tech appurtenances.

In education, government directives and academic hectoring about admissions quotas and ideological indoctrination likewise targeted the middle classes but not the elite. The micromanagers of Western public schools and universities often preferred private academies and rigorous traditional training for own children.

Elites relied on old-boy networks to get their own kids into colleges. Diversity administrators multiplied at universities while indebted students borrowed more money to pay for them.

In matters of immigration, the story was much the same. Western elites encouraged the migration of indigent, unskilled, and often poorly educated foreign nationals who would ensure that government social programs—and the power of the elites themselves—grew.

The champions of open borders made sure that such influxes did not materially affect their own neighborhoods, schools, and privileged way of life.

Elites masked their hypocrisy by virtue-signaling their disdain for the supposedly xenophobic, racist, or nativist middle classes.

Yet the non-elite have experienced firsthand the impact on social programs, schools, and safety from sudden, massive, and often illegal immigration from Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia into their communities.

As for trade, few still believe in “free” trade when it remains so unfair. Why didn’t elites extend to China their same tough-love lectures about global warming, or about breaking the rules of trade, copyrights, and patents?

The middle classes became nauseated by the constant elite trashing of their culture, history, and traditions, including the tearing down of statues, the Trotskyizing of past heroes, the renaming of public buildings and streets, and, for some, the tired and empty whining about “white privilege.”

If Western nations were really so bad, and so flawed at their founding, why were millions of non-Westerners risking their lives to reach Western soil?

How was it that elites themselves had made so much money, had gained so much influence, and had enjoyed such material bounty and leisure from such a supposedly toxic system—benefits that they were unwilling to give up despite their tired moralizing about selfishness and privilege?

In the next few years, expect more grassroots demands for the restoration of the value of citizenship.

There will be fewer middle-class apologies for patriotism and nationalism. The non-elite will become angrier about illegal immigration, demanding a return to the idea of measured, meritocratic, diverse, and legal immigration.

Because elites have no answers to popular furor, the anger directed at them will only increase until they give up—or finally succeed in their grand agenda of a nondemocratic, all-powerful, Orwellian state.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of the book “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.” You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Problematic Women: Women Are Increasingly Embracing Socialism … but Why?

Mass Homelessness Exposes California’s Political Dysfunction

Why Volkswagen Workers Should Be Wary of Unionizing


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Parents, Catholics and Muslims join together to denounce ‘gender ideology’ as ‘anti-science and anti-reason’

In a June 10, 2019 document entitled “Male and Female He Created Them” the Congregation for Catholic Education (CCE)wrote:

The Christian vision of anthropology sees sexuality as a fundamental component of one’s personhood. It is one of its mode of being, of manifesting itself, communicating with others, and of feeling, expressing and living human love. Therefore, our sexuality plays an integral part in the development of our personality and in the process of its education: “In fact, it is from [their] sex that the human person receives the characteristics which, on the biological, psychological and spiritual levels, make that person a man or a woman, and thereby largely condition his or her progress towards maturity and insertion into society”. As each person grows, “such diversity, linked to the complementarity of the two sexes, allows a thorough response to the design of God according to the vocation to which each one is called”. In the light of this, “affective-sex education must consider the totality of the person and insist therefore on the integration of the biological, psycho-affective, social and spiritual elements.” [Emphasis added]

This document comes as parents are increasingly objecting to new sex education courses in public schools that promote homosexuality.

In the United Kingdom this has lead to a growing national movement involving parents, Muslims and Christians, who are speaking out against “gender ideology” classes that “indoctrinate” their children. Watch this BBC video:

The CCE notes:

6. If we wish to take an approach to the question of gender theory that is based on the path of dialogue, it is vital to bear in mind the distinction between the ideology of gender on the one hand, and the whole feld [sic] of research on gender that the human sciences have undertaken, on the other. While the ideologies of gender claim to respond, as Pope Francis has indicated, “to what are at times understandable aspirations”, they also seek “to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised”, and thus preclude dialogue. [Emphasis added]

There is a growing push back against “gender ideology” as currently presented to children.

MassResistance in an August 24, 2014 column entitled “Introducing kids to adult/youth “gay clubs” in communities, outside of schools. A dangerous intro to “gay sex.” warned:

Probably the fastest and most dangerous way that schoolchildren are introduced to homosexual behavior is through adult-youth “community” gay clubs, which are run by homosexual (and transgender) activist adults and seek to attract local high school and middle school children.

[ … ]

How dangerous can these clubs get?  Most parents and public officials don’t have a clue.  Back in 2007 MassResistance posted a shocking public letter written by a 20-year-old homosexual activist in Maine describing the abuses going on by adults to kids in the local “gay youth” club. It included his own admission of sexual relations with two younger boys.

We have been writing about the introduction of the absurdity that one can “choose” their gender. Gender is determined at birth. Biology and science tell us so. To teach otherwise goes against science and culture. Parents are getting the word led by Catholics and Muslims alike.

RELATED VIDEO: To Defend The Children.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Are Abortion & Gay Rights American Values?

“MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM” – Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory in Education

LGBT movement organizing to mandate “gay history” in schools across America

Goal of “gay” programs in schools: Persuade kids to “come out” early as homosexuals. Here’s how they do it —

Rogue Embassies: Along for the Pride?

AOC’s Fundamental Ignorance vs The Alternate Twitter Universe

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is by now well-known for getting facts wrong and displaying jaw-dropping ignorance from economics to trains to laws.

But only well-known in one universe, the one reported by right-of-center news and commentary outlets and their consumers. Too often, consumers in this universe, in which The Revolutionary Act exists, think that once something is reported at Fox News, the Washington Examiner, the Daily Caller, Breitbart News, or others, it is known to the American people.

But this is wrong.

Because in the other universe, one populated by the mainstream media largely ignoring or downplaying her gaffes and on social media where she is gigantic and her followers only get news there or from the MSM, she remains this colossus of righteousness bestriding a racist, bigoted, unfair America.

Seriously. Many, many Americans who believe they keep up somewhat on the news and check their Twitter feed have little to no information on just how embarrassing she is. They either think Republicans are attacking her (the pounce narrative) or that Republicans are afraid of this truth-to-power-teller.

Nowhere was this on better display than during Tuesday’s House hearing on terrorism efforts, the conservative reporting on it, and AOC’s Twitter response.

Ryan Saavedra, of the Daily Wire, tweeted out a full story’s worth of tweets Friday, starting with:

“FBI Asst. Director of Counterterrorism Michael McGarrity has to repeatedly explain to Ocasio-Cortez that domestic terrorists are not charged with domestic terrorism because no domestic terrorist statute exists”

Fox News did a story on it Saturday. The timing is telling. The mainstream media ignored her embarrassing ignorance/dishonesty, much like they do other Democrats. If not for the conservative media, this would be essentially unknown.

The short of it is that AOC doesn’t understand the law on this issue, the difference between foreign actors and domestic, or how counter-terrorism works. She was intent on pursuing her pre-arranged line of questioning that American counterterrorism officials were unfairly targeting Muslims, and not white supremacists, with terrorism charges. She continued to question why they did not charge white supremacists with domestic terrorism when they charged Muslims in a couple of cases with terrorism.

The answer, which McGarrity patiently explained over and over was that there is no such thing as domestic terrorism in law, and you cannot charge people with something that is not illegal in law.

Further, the two examples she cited — the San Bernardino shootings and the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando — involved people with documented links to ISIS, which is a foreign terrorist organization. That triggers the terrorism charge. But white supremacists attacks, such as at the Pittsburgh synagogue shootings, had no foreign links, so the shooter acting alone was charged instead with multiple counts of murder.

No matter how much McGarrity explained that there are no statutes on domestic terrorism and so there can be no domestic terrorism charges, AOC kept going from her notes. She was pursuing a narrative, not facts or laws.

Read Saavedra’s thread or the Fox story or just watch the link on C-Span. It’s cringe-worthy. Almost hard to watch.

Except not for the rest of the universe outside of the conservosphere. In that one, the entire embarrassment never happened. Or, if you follow AOC’s huge Twitter following (created for her by the astonishing level of media coverage that primary victory attained) you get this parallel universe telling of what happened.

“This hearing was wild. 

First the FBI witness tried to say I was wrong. I tried to be generous + give benefit of doubt, but then we checked. I wasn’t.

Violence by Muslims is routinely treated as “terrorism,” White Supremacist violence isn’t.

Neo-Nazis are getting off the hook.”

Note, she doesn’t say what her staff checked and was right about, or what McGarrity was wrong about. Because she was obviously wrong. They are only different if there is a link to foreign terrorist organizations. Other Muslim attacks were not treated as terrorism because there was no documented links.

It’s really very, very difficult to give her the benefit of the doubt that this is just a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. So, if she was listening to McGarrity at all, she knows why some Muslims were charged with terrorism (and others were not) while white supremacists so far have not been. The sad and likely explanation is that she is just that comfortable with this level of…dissembling.

The reality, however, is that her tweet got 128,000 likes and 41,000 retweets — probably totaling more eyeballs than most of the conservosphere combined on this issue.

She is aided by the lack of MSM coverage and by Twitter outlets such as Now This News, which tweeted this doozie out:

“Rep. @AOC confronted this official about why the FBI doesn’t treat white supremacists the way it treats other terrorists”

Technically, yes, she did. And the answer was explained statutorily to her. Now This News must know this. But partisan narrative. Also, FYI, fake news coverage.

She could have come out on Twitter and called for a change in laws. That actually would have been both reasonable and even productive. After all, she is a “lawmaker.” Congress can pass a domestic terrorism law if they want. But making laws is hard work, even when staff does most everything. Grandstanding to the adulation of your only half-informed followers is easier and provides immediate gratification. Plus, this way she can still not admit to being wrong. Again.

Conservatives who think that Americans know AOC is a pretty, enthusiastic, bumbling doofus who is an American embarrassment are sadly mistaken. Most do not. And likely never will. It is our battle. And why The Revolutionary Act and so many others exist.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Will Trump Be Impeached? Here’s Everything You Need to Know About the Process

To impeach, or not to impeach? That is the question House Democrats are ferociously debating among themselves as they try to figure out the best way to attack President Donald Trump.

But what exactly is impeachment? And how hard would it be to impeach the president and actually remove him from office?

The average American understandably isn’t an expert on impeachment. Only two presidents have been impeached by the House—Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. But neither man lost his job.

The other day, someone I know who isn’t a lawyer asked me if Trump would go to prison if he were impeached. This question has taken on new prominence since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reportedly told senior House Democrats Tuesday that “I don’t want to see him [Trump] impeached, I want to see him in prison,” according to Politico.

Pelosi knows that impeachment could not result in imprisonment of the president. Her wish, apparently, is to lock him up after he leaves office—preferably after being defeated for re-election next year.

Impeachment is complicated and takes time. Parliamentary democracies can quickly remove a prime minister when a majority of lawmakers cast a vote of no-confidence in the leader. But in the U.S., the impeachment process is a much tougher task to accomplish.

With so much speculation about impeachment in the news, I thought it would be useful to create this primer on the process—let’s call it Impeachment 101. Here’s a Q&A.

What Is Impeachment?

Impeachment has nothing to do with the criminal prosecutions carried out by the U.S. Justice Department for violations of federal law, although such criminal violations may form a basis for impeachment.

Instead, as outlined in The Heritage Foundation’s “Guide to the Constitution,” impeachment is the process set out in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution for Congress to remove from office the president, vice president, and “all civil Officers of the United States” for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There is also a second process that applies only to the president. The 25th Amendment provides for the temporary transfer of the powers of the presidency to the vice president if a president is unable to discharge the duties of his office, such as due to a physical or other disability.

Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the “sole Power of Impeachment.”

In other words, only the House can pass a resolution of impeachment alleging that a president has committed “high Crimes and misdemeanors.”

Such a resolution, which requires only a simple majority vote, is similar to a criminal indictment by a grand jury—it is an unproven list of charges that a president has engaged in actions that warrant his impeachment.

If the House passes such an impeachment resolution, then the process moves to the Senate. Under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, the Senate has the “sole Power to try all impeachments.”

The Senate, in essence, becomes a trial court with all of the senators sitting as the judge and jury. Based on historic practice, members of the House can act as prosecutors.

It is important to note, however, that it is entirely up to the Senate to decide whether to hold a trial. There is no obligation under the Constitution to do so.

This means that even if the Democratic majority in the House votes to impeach Trump, the Republican majority in the Senate could decide to not even consider removing him from office.

House Democrats opposed to impeaching Trump say there is no point in passing an impeachment resolution because it would most likely be dead on arrival in the Senate.

How Does an Impeachment Trial Work?

If the Senate decides to hold an impeachment trial, the Constitution says the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over the proceeding. It takes a vote of “two-thirds of the Members present” in the Senate to convict any federal officer subject to an impeachment charge, including the president.

The two-thirds vote to convict means that 67 votes are needed in the 100-member Senate to remove the president and other federal officers from office. That is a very high hurdle that’s probably impossible to leap over in the case of Trump.

Democrats and independents allied with them hold only 47 seats in the Senate—meaning that even if they all voted to convict Trump, they would also need the votes of 20 Republican senators.

Not a single GOP senator has called for Trump to be impeached so far, and the chances of 20 jumping on board the impeachment bandwagon are slim to none.

As mentioned earlier, if a federal officer is convicted by the Senate, it is not a criminal conviction.

The Constitution states that impeachment “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

In other words, a federal official can be removed from office. He or she can also be banned from holding any other federal office in the future.

What Happens When a President or Other Official Is Removed?

On the other hand, conviction does not bar the removed official from being “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

So a federal official who is impeached, convicted, and removed from office—such as a federal judge or the president of the United States—can then be criminally prosecuted if he has violated a federal law, such as accepting bribes or engaging in treason.

How Is Impeachment Different From a Trial in Court?

The most important point to understand about impeachment is that it is not a legal proceeding like a federal criminal prosecution. And none of the procedural rules that apply to both criminal and civil trials in the federal courts apply.

Other than the constitutional division of labor between the House and Senate, the directive that the chief justice presides when it is the president being impeached, and the requirement of a two-thirds vote to convict, it is entirely up to the House and Senate to set the rules for how to proceed with impeachment.

It is also entirely up to Congress to determine what it considers “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” that constitute grounds for impeachment.

The Supreme Court—in a 1993 case called Nixon v. United States (a case involving a federal judge named Nixon, not former President Richard Nixon)—held that the impeachment process is a political question. It is not an issue that is reviewable by, or within the jurisdiction of, the federal courts.

How Has Impeachment Been Used in the Past?

During the course of our history, the House of Representatives has impeached 19 federal officials: 15 judges (including Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Chase), one Cabinet member, one U.S. senator, and Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, according to a 2015 report by the Congressional Research Service.

Many people mistakenly believe that President Richard Nixon was impeached. In fact, Nixon resigned in 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment, but before a resolution of impeachment could be voted on by the House.

Both Johnson and Clinton were acquitted in their impeachment trials held in the Senate.

Of the 14 other impeachment trials held, only eight resulted in convictions (all of federal judges). The last such trial (which I attended in a Senate hearing room) was of former federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.

Porteous was convicted in 2010 by the Senate on four articles of impeachment, including receiving cash and favors from lawyers who were practicing before him and lying to the FBI and the Senate during his nomination process.

What Is an Impeachable Offense?

Impeachment is probably not limited to criminal acts.

Treason and bribery are clearly criminal violations, but the Constitution does not define “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 65 that impeachable offenses would include “the misconduct of public men” or the “abuse or violation of some public trust.”

According to the 2015 Congressional Research Service report, both houses of Congress have in the past “given the phrase ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ a broad reading, ‘finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.’”

Is Impeachment Really About the Law or About Politics?

Impeachment is a political process.

If a majority of Americans do not believe that the impeachment of a president is warranted because no actual wrongdoing has occurred, there seems little doubt that members of Congress pushing impeachment will be unsuccessful and may suffer damaging political consequences at the ballot box.

After Republicans tried and failed to remove Clinton through impeachment, they lost seats in Congress in the next election. Democratic opponents of impeaching Trump fear this could happen to them if they impeach him.

The impeachment process was not placed in the Constitution so it could be used for crass, partisan gamesmanship, but was instead created to remedy serious misbehavior by federal officials.

If members of the House and Senate start voting to impeach a president because they simply oppose his policies, we could see a lot more attempts to impeach presidents in the future.

Members of Congress should be wary of abusing the impeachment authority in such a manner, because it could imperil the stability of our constitutional structure by removing a duly elected president.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, and whether you support or oppose Trump, you should oppose making impeachment a frequently used move against presidents of the United States. Someday, a president you think is doing a great job could be targeted.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Conservatives Should Take Heart Despite Socialist Upsurge


A Note for our Readers:

America’s trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so, given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C. and across the country.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it’s been painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely only upon the support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

We do this because you deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal today.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: The Storm Is Upon Us

In October 2017 as seen in this short video clip [below], President Trump said “You guys know what this represents? Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.” What storm Mr. President (asked reporter), Trump replied, “You’ll find out”.

Well that time has come. Yes, the storm is upon us. What storm? The battle between good and evil. Now that’s a storm.

Things will become increasingly more dangerous and challenging before we transition into a new norm here on planet earth. We are coming to see that all has not been what it seems. This goes far beyond just politics. This is global, affecting all of humanity. Welcome to the great awakening. Welcome to your life!

With the Deep State de-class now underway, lies are being exposed, truths are being surfaced. Once stable datums will be challenged. This will lead to uncertainty and confusion. Trust the plan. Stay the course. It’s okay to have been wrong, we all have been to a greater or lesser extent. We all strive to be right and now, we can be. All of us. The videos, on the right side of my blog page, will help you to connect the dots. There is a plan. A well orchestrated plan that is underway and has been for years. Get ready. Be prepared. Stay informed. Yes, the storm is upon us. As to the swiftness we all would like to see with regards to the taking down the deep state, know this; it’s far more complicated than you may realize and timing is key. This is an intel battle. Optics are just that, optics. Patience is a virtue. They are all going down over the next couple of years beginning here in 2019.

Far Beyond Just Politics

This goes far beyond just politics. One reason we are winning, is the fact that people are basically and inherently good. Sure, there is about 3%-5%  or so of the world’s population that operates in darkness, under the clutches of Satan if you will. This is pure evil manifested. This is why the President has being using words like “evil, evil people doing bad, bad things”. He is preparing us and the world to confront some rather disruptive uncomfortable truths. The demonic influences have seized control over such persons. Then there is about 20%-30% or so of the population (probably a lot more), that are so adversely affected, they have a difficult time functioning and thus wreaking havoc for the rest of us.

So many people are beginning to come out of the darkness and into the light. Support them, they need our help. Surveys indicate that the black community for example, controlled and hood-winked by the Democrats and deep state for decades, is one good example. The black community support of candidate Trump by some estimates was around 18%. Today this has nearly doubled. Thank you Candice  Owens and others for helping to awaken the black community. People are also coming aboard as most people do not support infanticide, the killing of a new born infant. Most Americans do not support socialism and the new green deal of insanity. Again a battle between good and evil that far transcends just politics. It’s common sense. It’s a simple matter of right and wrong. I wrote about this in the article titled Trump and the Morality of Mankind. The deeply corrupt deep state and shadow government of this world are being exposed. Remember, many of these people are psychopaths and sociopaths and they do not view nor respect life like the rest of us. This is a deadly serious battle and failure is not an option.

Want to take this one step further? Watch this video from David Icke:

And this video from my good friend Paul St. John:

Then read this article by my good friend Dr. Richard Davis (R.I.P.) and get a sense of what we are up against. President Trump said recently his greatest achievement as President, will be exposing the corruption and indeed he is and this has just begun.

Vote for President Trump in 2020. No Trump-No Hope!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s speech at 75th D-Day anniversary in Normandy | Full remarks

Exclusive: Trump sits down with Ingraham on 75th anniversary of D-Day

Sarasota Patriots – Paul St. John – 5G Prosperity or Apocalypse – A MUST SEE FOR HUMANITY!

Drip, Drip, Drip, The Great Awakening, This Is The Storm – Episode 1887b

We Carry The Light in the Dark of the Night NNN WWG1WGA L@wsuit

[CB] Reverses Policy, It Happened Exactly As Planned – Episode 1887a

Trump crushes globalism. What’s next?

Robert David Steele – Rothscchild and the Vatican have accepted an exit strategy

Kevin Shipp–Former CIA Officer – TREASON and JUSTICE coming

Money Masters – debt capital markets

EDITORS NOTE: This Course Corrections Consulting column with videos is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Democrats Pursue Voter Fraud Leading Up To 2020

Mark Hemingway at Real Clear Investigations recently wrote a solid piece about the “data problem” with getting clean voter rolls and eradicating voter fraud.

He’s right, there is a data problem. And a management problem. And a competence problem. After all, government runs elections and government is pretty famously awful in all of those categories. But those are manifestations of a deeper problem that is going to dog the country in 2020 and almost assuredly beyond.

One of our two major parties opposes any attempts to enforce voting laws and block illegal voting, and has even begun making overt attempts to create legal voting pathways for non-citizens.

It’s fairly clear that the Democratic Party sees electoral benefit in non-citizens voting, and rightly so because of the gargantuan number of illegal Hispanics in the U.S. and first generation Hispanics are heavily Democratic voters.

Further, Democratic leadership sees a winning issue with the base and some Independents by painting Republicans as racistly trying to suppress the minority vote in their modest attempts to clean up voter rolls — even when those attempts are mandated by law.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is not only supposedly the most moderate among the Democratic presidential candidates, he’s just as quick as any new radical or old school Democrat to play the race card against Republicans.

Race is used dishonestly as a cudgel on virtually any issue. In 2012, speaking to a largely black Virginia audience about Mitt Romney’s plan to allow some deregulation of Wall Street, Biden told the crowd: “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

Pretty despicable, but also a hardened part of the Democratic platform in every election — and a real hot-button when connected with voting rights.

Republicans support basic voter identification laws to ensure ballot integrity. You just need to prove who you are to be able to cast that vote. This seems like it should be a bipartisan mom and apple pie issue.

But to Democrats like Biden, who supposedly represents the less radical arm of the Democratic Party, voter ID laws are an opportunity to slap down that tattered race card yet again. They purposely oppose every effort to create clean, up-to-date voter rolls.

Laws vary from state to state, but voter identification laws generally require that identification be presented before a voter reaches the ballot box. In some states, such as Florida where statewide vote margins can be razor thin, the ID must be shown at the polls, while other states only require it for voter registration. But in some states, such as Arizona, any ID, including a utility bill, will do.

Republicans say these laws protect against voter fraud by ineligible voters, including voting by illegal immigrants and double and triple voting.

For Democrats, it’s an opportunity to invigorate racial division and fear mongering. Here’s Biden at it again during a rally last month in South Carolina:

“You’ve got Jim Crow sneaking back in. You know what happens when you (black people) have an equal right to vote? They lose.”

So if Democrats see an opportunity to whip up racial tension among blacks and Hispanics that translate into more votes, they have zero motivation to actually try to ensure ballot box integrity. We’ve seen this recently in multiple states, including Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania, where attempts to make sure the voting rolls were cleaned up were met with vitriolic opposition and lawsuits.

The interesting fact is that there is no real evidence that voter ID laws actually suppress the votes of legal voters, including black voters. Even the left-of-center data site FiveThirtyEight substantially concludes this by looking at laws and voter turnout.

So does the left-of-center Brookings Institute in looking at Pennsylvania and Georgia, which both cleaned up their voting rolls prior to the 2018 election. Yet both saw huge jumps in black voter turnout — during a non-presidential midterm election.

“In fact, Georgia is one of the few states where black voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in 2018. Moreover, its 2018 black voter turnout of 60 percent exceeded its turnout in the 2016 presidential election by 1 percent,” according to Brookings.

But this record black turnout, exceeding white turnout, does not stop Democrat Stacey Abrams, who lost a close race for Governor, to claim that she is the real winner because of voter suppression that limited the black vote. Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris has said the same thing, both claiming to black audiences that Abrams was robbed of the victory by the GOP.

And of course San Francisco has voted to allow illegal immigrants and other noncitizens to vote in local elections. The fear by illegals that they will be identified by ICE has kept their numbers down, but the city has spent more than $300,000 in voter registration drives aimed at illegal residents. They really, really want illegals voting.

This is the undeniably glaring problem with trying to have clean, legal elections without fraud. Democrats don’t want it. They want both illegal votes of non-citizens, mostly Hispanics, and they want to fear monger blacks into high turnout while voting 90 percent Democrat.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Biden: Dr. Jekyll and No More Hyde

If you’re keeping track of Joe Biden’s policy positions, you’d better have plenty of erasers. The former vice president has done so much waffling he ought to buy a maple syrup company. On taxpayer-funded abortion alone, he’s had three positions in three weeks. The Democratic front-runner has changed his mind so much that most people probably don’t even know which statement he’s reversing at this point.

The short version goes something like this: he does, he doesn’t, he does again. When an ACLU “volunteer” ambushed Biden at an event May, Barack Obama’s second-in-command said twice: the Hyde amendment has to go. Two weeks, later, he told reporters he didn’t understand the woman’s question — not the first time he answered it, and apparently, not the second. “He has not at this point changed his [support for] the Hyde amendment,” his campaign clarified on ABC News. He “misheard the woman,” Biden’s staffers explained, “and thought she was referring to the Mexico City policy.”

Until 2016, a lot of Democrats felt like Biden did — that regardless of how people feel about abortion, Americans shouldn’t be forced to fund it. Then came the new party platform, which torpedoed Hyde and sent moderates packing. Sticking to his stance would have set Biden apart as the reasonable voice on abortion that his party is not. Instead, after a little tug at the strings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, he snapped to attention and saluted the new Democratic Party abortion orthodoxy turning his back on 40 years of common sense. Barely a day later, he’d been reeled back to the pack — like a breakaway rider caught by the peloton.

In a speech Thursday, he might as well have said, “About those four decades I spent defending taxpayers: just kidding!” What he actually told the audience is that he’d been struggling with the “problems” of the Hyde amendment and decided (again) he could “no could “no longer support [it].” “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” Huh? It’s bad enough that his on-again, off-again relationship with abortion funding is harder to track than a celebrity couple — but what do zip codes have to do with it?

Planned Parenthood tried to explain in its ‘atta-boy tweet, insisting that blocking taxpayer-funded abortion somehow hurts minority women. False. What actually hurts minorities is abortion, which disproportionately targets them — and has, since Margaret Sanger founded the organization. Even now her eugenics legacy lives on, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued, in a scathing opinion this month on race-based abortion.

Eight decades after Margaret Sanger set up her birth-control clinic in Harlem, Justice Thomas writes, “there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive — and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.” Leana Wen’s clinics alone kill 247 black babies a day. So if you want to talk about zip codes, try Planned Parenthood’s. An overwhelming majority are located in black or Hispanic neighborhoods. That’s not a coincidence. It’s a business model.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden isn’t the only one burning through flip-flops. The same radical candidates who welcomed him back to Left field aren’t exactly the picture of consistency on Hyde. “Nearly every member of Congress running for president has voted multiple times for spending bills that include Hyde language,” the Washington Post reports. “Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) all voted for a bill passed in September that funded HHS along with the departments of Labor, Defense and Education. So did Democratic Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and Seth Moulton (Mass.), as well as former congressman Beto O’Rourke (Texas.).”

Funny, the Post went on, “but those realities didn’t stop many of the contenders from piling on Biden, after his campaign said Wednesday that he still backed Hyde. One of those cultural chameleons, Amy Klobuchar, insisted that backing a wall between taxpayers and abortion would have been “a big problem” for Biden. But says who? Certainly not Americans — or even Democrats — who support Hyde 2-1. What she probably meant to say is that it would have been a big problem for the extremist fringe calling the shots. Biden, like the other 22 candidates, is just showing himself for what he is: a puppet on the strings of radical abortion, LGBT activists.

It’s pathetic, NRO’s Rich Lowry agrees. “This isn’t a move of a confident front-runner. It shows that whatever is Biden’s relative moderation compared to the rest of the field will be eroded during this process. Disorderly retreats like this, if they become a pattern, also have potential to harm his image as a strong general-election candidate. If he’s the nominee, his new support for taxpayer-funded abortion will certainly be a liability in the Rust Belt, where Trump currently needs to make up ground.”

If there’s one thing the president has going for him, it’s this: No one has to guess where he stands. Not on abortion — not ever.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Joe Biden Profile – Discover the Networks

Florist to SCOTUS: Forget Me Not

Wisc. Science Teacher Experiments with Gender

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

The Danger of the Attacks on the Electoral College

Trent England
Director, Save Our States


Trent EnglandTrent England is executive vice president and the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, where he also directs the Save Our States project. He earned his B.A. in government from Claremont McKenna College and his J.D. from the George Mason University School of Law. He previously served as executive vice president of the Freedom Foundation and as a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. He hosts the podcast, The Trent England Show, and has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street JournalChristian Science Monitor, and The Washington Times. He is a contributor to The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.


Once upon a time, the Electoral College was not controversial. During the debates over ratifying the Constitution, Anti-Federalist opponents of ratification barely mentioned it. But by the mid-twentieth century, opponents of the Electoral College nearly convinced Congress to propose an amendment to scrap it. And today, more than a dozen states have joined in an attempt to hijack the Electoral College as a way to force a national popular vote for president.

What changed along the way? And does it matter? After all, the critics of the Electoral College simply want to elect the president the way we elect most other officials. Every state governor is chosen by a statewide popular vote. Why not a national popular vote for president?

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 asked themselves the same question, but then rejected a national popular vote along with several other possible modes of presidential election. The Virginia Plan—the first draft of what would become the new Constitution—called for “a National Executive . . . to be chosen by the National Legislature.” When the Constitutional Convention took up the issue for the first time, near the end of its first week of debate, Roger Sherman from Connecticut supported this parliamentary system of election, arguing that the national executive should be “absolutely dependent” on the legislature. Pennsylvania’s James Wilson, on the other hand, called for a popular election. Virginia’s George Mason thought a popular election “impracticable,” but hoped Wilson would “have time to digest it into his own form.” Another delegate suggested election by the Senate alone, and then the Convention adjourned for the day.

When they reconvened the next morning, Wilson had taken Mason’s advice. He presented a plan to create districts and hold popular elections to choose electors. Those electors would then vote for the executive—in other words, an electoral college. But with many details left out, and uncertainty remaining about the nature of the executive office, Wilson’s proposal was voted down. A week later, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed election by state governors. This too was voted down, and a consensus began to build. Delegates did not support the Virginia Plan’s parliamentary model because they understood that an executive selected by Congress would become subservient to Congress. A similar result, they came to see, could be expected from assigning the selection to any body of politicians.

There were other oddball proposals that sought to salvage congressional selection—for instance, to have congressmen draw lots to form a group that would then choose the executive in secret. But by July 25, it was clear to James Madison that the choice was down to two forms of popular election: “The option before us,” he said, “[is] between an appointment by Electors chosen by the people—and an immediate appointment by the people.” Madison said he preferred popular election, but he recognized two legitimate concerns. First, people would tend toward supporting candidates from their own states, giving an advantage to larger states. Second, a few areas with higher concentrations of voters might come to dominate. Madison spoke positively of the idea of an electoral college, finding that “there would be very little opportunity for cabal, or corruption” in such a system.

By August 31, the Constitution was nearly finished—except for the process of electing the president. The question was put to a committee comprised of one delegate from each of the eleven states present at the Convention. That committee, which included Madison, created the Electoral College as we know it today. They presented the plan on September 4, and it was adopted with minor changes. It is found in Article II, Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

Federal officials were prohibited from being electors. Electors were required to cast two ballots, and were prohibited from casting both ballots for candidates from their own state. A deadlock for president would be decided by the House of Representatives, with one vote per state. Following that, in case of a deadlock for vice president, the Senate would decide. Also under the original system, the runner up became vice president.

This last provision caused misery for President John Adams in 1796, when his nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, became his vice president. Four years later it nearly robbed Jefferson of the presidency when his unscrupulous running mate, Aaron Burr, tried to parlay an accidental deadlock into his own election by the House. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, fixed all this by requiring electors to cast separate votes for president and vice president.

And there things stand, constitutionally at least. State legislatures have used their power to direct the manner of choosing electors in various ways: appointing them directly, holding elections by district, or holding statewide elections. Today, 48 states choose their presidential electors in a statewide, winner-take-all vote. Maine and Nebraska elect one elector based on each congressional district’s vote and the remaining two based on the statewide vote.

It is easy for Americans to forget that when we vote for president, we are really voting for electors who have pledged to support the candidate we favor. Civics education is not what it used to be. Also, perhaps, the Electoral College is a victim of its own success. Most of the time, it shapes American politics in ways that are beneficial but hard to see. Its effects become news only when a candidate and his or her political party lose a hard-fought and narrowly decided election.

So what are the beneficial effects of choosing our presidents through the Electoral College?

Under the Electoral College system, presidential elections are decentralized, taking place in the states. Although some see this as a flaw—U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren opposes the Electoral College expressly because she wants to increase federal power over elections—this decentralization has proven to be of great value.

For one thing, state boundaries serve a function analogous to that of watertight compartments on an ocean liner. Disputes over mistakes or fraud are contained within individual states. Illinois can recount its votes, for instance, without triggering a nationwide recount. This was an important factor in America’s messiest presidential election—which was not in 2000, but in 1876.

That year marked the first time a presidential candidate won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. It was a time of organized suppression of black voters in the South, and there were fierce disputes over vote totals in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Each of those states sent Congress two sets of electoral vote totals, one favoring Republican Rutherford Hayes and the other Democrat Samuel Tilden. Just two days before Inauguration Day, Congress finished counting the votes—which included determining which votes to count—and declared Hayes the winner. Democrats proclaimed this “the fraud of the century,” and there is no way to be certain today—nor was there probably a way to be certain at the time—which candidate actually won. At the very least, the Electoral College contained these disputes within individual states so that Congress could endeavor to sort it out. And it is arguable that the Electoral College prevented a fraudulent result.

Four years later, the 1880 presidential election demonstrated another benefit of the Electoral College system: it can act to amplify the results of a presidential election. The popular vote margin that year was less than 10,000 votes—about one-tenth of one percent—yet Republican James Garfield won a resounding electoral victory, with 214 electoral votes to Democrat Winfield Hancock’s 155. There was no question who won, let alone any need for a recount. More recently, in 1992, the Electoral College boosted the legitimacy of Democrat Bill Clinton, who won with only 43 percent of the popular vote but received over 68 percent of the electoral vote.

But there is no doubt that the greatest benefit of the Electoral College is the powerful incentive it creates against regionalism. Here, the presidential elections of 1888 and 1892 are most instructive. In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland lost reelection despite receiving a popular vote plurality. He won this plurality because he won by very large margins in the overwhelmingly Democratic South. He won Texas alone by 146,461 votes, for instance, whereas his national popular vote margin was only 94,530. Altogether he won in six southern states with margins greater than 30 percent, while only tiny Vermont delivered a victory percentage of that size for Republican Benjamin Harrison.

In other words, the Electoral College ensures that winning supermajorities in one region of the country is not sufficient to win the White House. After the Civil War, and especially after the end of Reconstruction, that meant that the Democratic Party had to appeal to interests outside the South to earn a majority in the Electoral College. And indeed, when Grover Cleveland ran again for president four years later in 1892, although he won by a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he won a resounding Electoral College majority by picking up New York, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and California in addition to winning the South.

Whether we see it or not today, the Electoral College continues to push parties and presidential candidates to build broad coalitions. Critics say that swing states get too much attention, leaving voters in so-called safe states feeling left out. But the legitimacy of a political party rests on all of those safe states—on places that the party has already won over, allowing it to reach farther out. In 2000, for instance, George W. Bush needed every state that he won—not just Florida—to become president. Of course, the Electoral College does put a premium on the states in which the parties are most evenly divided. But would it really be better if the path to the presidency primarily meant driving up the vote total in the deepest red or deepest blue states?

Also, swing states are the states most likely to have divided government. And if divided government is good for anything, it is accountability. So with the Electoral College system, when we do wind up with a razor-thin margin in an election, it is likely to happen in a state where both parties hold some power, rather than in a state controlled by one party.

Despite these benefits of the current system, opponents of the Electoral College maintain that it is unseemly for a candidate to win without receiving the most popular votes. As Hillary Clinton put it in 2000: “In a democracy, we should respect the will of the people, and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College.” Yet similar systems prevail around the world. In parliamentary systems, including Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, prime ministers are elected by the legislature. This happens in Germany and India as well, which also have presidents who are elected by something similar to an electoral college. In none of these democratic systems is the national popular vote decisive.

More to the point, in our own political tradition, what matters most about every legislative body, from our state legislatures to the House of Representatives and the Senate, is which party holds the majority. That party elects the leadership and sets the agenda. In none of these representative chambers does the aggregate popular vote determine who is in charge. What matters is winning districts or states.

Nevertheless, there is a clamor of voices calling for an end to the Electoral College. Former Attorney General Eric Holder has declared it “a vestige of the past,” and Washington Governor Jay Inslee has labeled it an “archaic relic of a bygone age.” Almost as one, the current myriad of Democratic presidential hopefuls have called for abolishing the Electoral College.

Few if any of these Democrats likely realize how similar their party’s position is to what it was in the late nineteenth century, with California representing today what the South was for their forebears. The Golden State accounted for 10.4 percent of presidential votes cast in 2016, while the southern states (from South Carolina down to Florida and across to Texas) accounted for 10.6 percent of presidential votes cast in 1888. Grover Cleveland won those southern states by nearly 39 percent, while Hillary Clinton won California by 30 percent. But rather than following Cleveland’s example of building a broader national coalition that could win in the Electoral College, today’s Democrats would rather simply change the rules.

Anti-Electoral College amendments with bipartisan support in the 1950s and 1970s failed to receive the two-thirds votes in Congress they needed in order to be sent to the states for consideration. Likewise today, partisan amendments will not make it through Congress. Nor, if they did, could they win ratification among the states.

But there is a serious threat to the Electoral College. Until recently, it has gone mostly unnoticed, as it has made its way through various state legislatures. If it works according to its supporters’ intent, it would nullify the Electoral College by creating a de facto direct election for president.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV, takes advantage of the flexibility granted to state legislatures in the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The original intent of this was to allow state legislators to determine how best to represent their state in presidential elections. The electors represent the state—not just the legislature—even though the latter has power to direct the manner of appointment. By contrast, NPV supporters argue that this power allows state legislatures to ignore their state’s voters and appoint electors based on the national popular vote. This is what the compact would require states to do.

Of course, no state would do this unilaterally, so NPV has a “trigger”: it only takes effect if adopted by enough states to control 270 electoral votes—in other words, a majority that would control the outcome of presidential elections. So far, 14 states and the District of Columbia have signed on, with a total of 189 electoral votes.

Until this year, every state that had joined NPV was heavily Democratic: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The NPV campaign has struggled to win other Democratic states: Delaware only adopted it this year and it still has not passed in Oregon (though it may soon). Following the 2018 election, Democrats came into control of both the legislatures and the governorships in the purple states of Colorado and New Mexico, which have subsequently joined NPV.

NPV would have the same effect as abolishing the Electoral College. Fraud in one state would affect every state, and the only way to deal with it would be to give more power to the federal government. Elections that are especially close would require nationwide recounts. Candidates could win based on intense support from a narrow region or from big cities. NPV also carries its own unique risks: despite its name, the plan cannot actually create a national popular vote. Each state would still—at least for the time being—run its own elections. This means a patchwork of rules for everything from which candidates are on the ballot to how disputes are settled. NPV would also reward states with lax election laws—the higher the turnout, legal or not, the more power for that state. Finally, each NPV state would certify its own “national” vote total. But what would happen when there are charges of skullduggery? Would states really trust, with no power to verify, other state’s returns?

Uncertainty and litigation would likely follow. In fact, NPV is probably unconstitutional. For one thing, it ignores the Article I, Section 10 requirement that interstate compacts receive congressional consent. There is also the fact that the structure of the Electoral College clause of the Constitution implies there is some limit on the power of state legislatures to ignore the will of their state’s people.

One danger of all these attacks on the Electoral College is, of course, that we lose the state-by-state system designed by the Framers and its protections against regionalism and fraud. This would alter our politics in some obvious ways—shifting power toward urban centers, for example—but also in ways we cannot know in advance. Would an increase in presidents who win by small pluralities lead to a rise of splinter parties and spoiler candidates? Would fears of election fraud in places like Chicago and Broward County lead to demands for greater federal control over elections?

The more fundamental danger is that these attacks undermine the Constitution as a whole. Arguments that the Constitution is outmoded and that democracy is an end in itself are arguments that can just as easily be turned against any of the constitutional checks and balances that have preserved free government in America for well over two centuries. The measure of our fundamental law is not whether it actualizes the general will—that was the point of the French Revolution, not the American. The measure of our Constitution is whether it is effective at encouraging just, stable, and free government—government that protects the rights of its citizens.

The Electoral College is effective at doing this. We need to preserve it, and we need to help our fellow Americans understand why it matters.

RELATED ARTICLE: U. S. Electoral College, Official – What is the Electoral College?

EDITORS NOTE: This Hillsdale College lecture is republished with permission.

VIDEO: The Coward From Broward Is in Police Custody — Watch Andrew Pollack’s Reaction

It’s only been a day since the news broke regarding Scot Peterson’s arrest, but Parkland Dad Andrew Pollack is already praising the authorities’ call for accountability.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chuck Michel: Background Checks on Ammo Coming to California

Bill Behnke: Forced To Pack Up and Take Business Elsewhere

Dave Kopel’s Deconstruction of Ammo Bans Is Genius

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-TV video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Here Are The Republicans In Congress Standing With Trump Over Mexico Tariff Threat

A number of Republicans in the Senate are standing with President Donald Trump over his threat to apply tariffs to Mexico on Tuesday after several party members spoke out against it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that “there is not much support in my conference for tariffs” and he is hoping that the tariffs are not implemented. Other Senators also decided to speak out against Trump’s threat.

Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said he will not support applying a tariff to Mexico, saying he “would not be inclined to vote [for] a tariff against a friend,” Politico reported Tuesday.

Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford reportedly also criticized Trump’s threat, saying the White House “is trying to use tariffs to solve every problem but HIV and climate change.”

However, a number of Republicans are in favor of applying tariffs to Mexico, such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who said in a tweet Wednesday:

I don’t generally like tariffs either. But what alternative do my GOP colleagues have to get #Mexico to secure its southern border, use the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to screen northbound rail cars & vehicles & act on intel we proved on human traffickers?

Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis also defended Trump’s move, saying “I think it’s more likely the tariffs go on,” and that it would be “foolish” for Republicans to try to block the presidents move, in an appearance Tuesday on Fox News.

“I don’t think they’ll do that. If they do, it’s foolish. There is nothing more important than borders,” he continued.

Another senator who has supported Trump’s proposal to apply tariffs to Mexico, is Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby. He told reporters on Capitol Hill Monday he is “not a tariff man,” but that he thinks “if it leads to a better trade agreement, I can understand his strategy.” Shelby also said, “well, if it doesn’t work you are right where you are. Probably have nothing to lose.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy defended Trump, according to the president, who tweeted a quote attributed to McCarthy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Full-Blown Emergency’: Southern Border Arrests Surge

Democrats (Again) Side With Criminal Illegal Aliens in Amnesty Bill

Another Obama-Era Official: Yes, There’s a Serious Crisis at the Southern Border

GOP Divided On Trump’s Mexico Tariff Threat

Here Are The Seven House Republicans Who Voted For Amnesty Bill

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Former sheriff’s deputy Scot Peterson charged with child neglect, culpable negligence & perjury in connection with Parkland school mass shooting

Fort Lauderdale – Former Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson is facing 11 criminal charges – including child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury – in connection with his lack of response to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Broward State Attorney Mike Satz announced Tuesday.

Following a 14-month investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, former Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson, 56, was arrested Tuesday on seven counts of child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence and one count of perjury. The investigation examined the actions of law enforcement during and following the Parkland school mass shooting.

Peterson will be booked into the Broward County Jail. His bond is set at $102,000. Under the terms of his bond, Peterson would be required to wear a GPS monitor, must surrender his passport and is banned from possessing any firearms while the case is pending.

If convicted, the 11 charges technically carry a maximum potential punishment of 96 ½ years in state prison.

Six of the seven child neglect charges are second-degree felonies and carry a maximum penalty of 15 years in state prison. The seventh child neglect charge is a third-degree felony (because the child was not severely injured) with a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The perjury charge is a first-degree misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of one year in jail. The three charges of culpable negligence are second-degree misdemeanors with a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail.

During the investigation, FDLE agents interviewed 184 witnesses, reviewed countless hours of video surveillance, and wrote 212 investigative reports, totaling more than 800 hours of investigation on the case to determine the actions of law enforcement as they responded to the February 14, 2018 school shooting. The investigation received the full cooperation and assistance from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, Coral Springs Police Department and all other agencies that responded to the school shooting.

Assistant State Attorney Tim Donnelly is handling the case for the Broward State Attorney’s Office (17th Judicial Circuit).

Click here for Scot Peterson arrest warrant.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sheriff’s Deputy Who Fled Parkland Shooting Charged With Neglecting Children

Biden Tries Boosting His Self-Extreme

There are times when the Democratic party looks like a formidable threat heading into 2020 — and other times, like this weekend, when people are wondering if their political strategists are permanently out to lunch. Initially, former Vice President Joe Biden probably stood out to a lot of people as a legitimate contender in the field of 23. Now, after a Human Rights Campaign dinner keynote, he’s standing out for another reason: his LGBT fanaticism.

Beating Donald Trump wasn’t going to be an easy task — but Joe Biden just made it a whole lot harder for himself. At a Saturday night speech, the man formerly known as the moderate choice in a cramped race, made a startling announcement about his plans as president. If he wins, he told a room of HRC activists, LGBT “rights” will be his number one priority. “In this dangerous moment for our nation,” he said, “the very idea of America is at stake.” Calling the president’s policies “wrong” and “immoral,” Biden vowed, “I promise you if I’m elected… [the Equality Act] will be the first thing I ask to be done. This is our soul, da**it. This is who we have to be…”

While the crowd of activists wildly cheered, the rest of the country’s reaction could probably be summed up in one word: Really? With all of the tension on the world stage, with immigration reaching its boiling point, and people looking to Washington to keep the economic boom going, the front-runner of the Democratic party says putting men in girls’ bathrooms is the most important thing of all?

Sure, the Equality Act will excite a tiny fringe of liberal voters, but even Democratic headquarters knows there are a lot more serious issues facing our nation than putting Drag Queen Story Hours in every library. And the pollsters know it too. If you ask Americans what their biggest concerns are heading into next year’s election, the LGBT agenda doesn’t even make the list! In April, when Fox News ran the numbers, immigration (21 percent) and the economy (10 percent) were the only two that even had double-digit mentions. Gallup’s team got the same response in the lead-up to the midterms. When they asked voters, Biden’s number-one priority wasn’t even on the map. Even climate change, which is usually dead last on Americans’ minds, had more fans.

If Biden wanted to galvanize the Left with his sudden extremist streak, the Equality Act is about the worst piece of legislation he could have chosen. Apart from the out-of-touch party on Capitol Hill, the policy is so unpopular that it’s even difficult to find liberal consensus on the matter. Feminists, parents, and LGBT athletes were outspokenly opposed to H.R. 5. Thanks to Saturday’s speech, we don’t even have to ask how Biden feels about girls’ sportsparental authorityreligious libertywomen’s rightsprivacy, and the free market. His support of the Equality Act tells us all we need to know about a possible Biden administration. “It will send a message,” Biden told the audience, “around the world, not just at home.” And that message would be this: We’re no longer a nation of common-sense and freedom.

In a party that already has an infanticide problem, a socialism problem, a Green New Deal problem — and so much more — battleground states have to be looking at this crop of D.C. Democrats and thinking: Are you deaf? Didn’t anyone learn the lessons of 2016, when Hillary Clinton lost because “Rust Belt voters thought she cared more about bathrooms than jobs?” Apparently not. Even now, as heartland Democrats raise red flags about the national party’s strategy, no one seems to care that Biden is alienating himself from the very moderates he might have appealed to.

“From the Appalachian regions of Ohio to the Iron Range of Minnesota and the northern reaches of Michigan and Wisconsin, across Iowa and Missouri and through the southern swaths of Indiana and Illinois — areas in which Bill Clinton triumphed and Hillary Clinton tanked — the quotes from the 72 rural Democrats [Politico] interviewed [last year] read like a pent-up primal scream. And [Indiana State Rep.] Terry Goodin’s [D] comments pop out in particular… He says the Democratic Party is ‘lazy,’ ‘out of touch with mainstream America…’ The Democrats in his district, he laments, ‘feel abandoned.'”

They’re about to feel even more so. When the “moderate” in the field is pushing for taxpayer-funded abortions and gender reassignment surgeries, boys in girls’ showers, legal infanticide, religious discrimination, and the end of parental authority and women’s sports, he isn’t just on the wrong side of history, he’s on the wrong side of most Americans. Social extremism can’t win you an election — but it can sure cost you one. Just ask Hillary Clinton.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

On Bogren, Two’s Company

President’s Day — in June!

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

The Vortex — Abortion & Sodomy: How do the bishops handle each of these? [Video]

TRANSCRIPT

As we promised you, Church Militant is going to be vigilant and relentless in exposing the filthy squalor into which many of the members of the hierarchy have descended.

And the point to keep uppermost in your mind is that this stuff — all of it — has been known and is still known by multiple bishops, chancery personnel, lawyers and Catholic media types who continue the cover-up.

It is of little significance, except from a criminal law standpoint, if what happened was two years ago or 20 years ago.

All of this filth stains the hands of the dozens of people who did it and covered it up as well as enabled it back in the day and still continue to enable it by refusing to come forward with what they know.

Many of the rats who were running around their chanceries back in the day are today bishops or auxiliary bishops who know many dark secrets and simply refuse to divulge them, especially their own role in the filthy business.

Take for example the case of Fr. Andrew Millar from the diocese of Rockville Center, New York back around the year 2000.

In May of that year, Millar was arrested for sodomizing a 15-year-old mentally disabled teenage boy in a bathroom at a popular beach on Long Island. In November of the same year, a finding of guilty got him a prison sentence of one to three years.

Now, here’s the hitch. Millar was roaming about and able to commit what detectives called a “crime of opportunity” because he was living near the beach in retirement at a Rockville Center parish.

The reason he was “retired” and living at the parish was because he had been stashed away there by then-Bishop James McHugh after Millar had been accused to the diocese of sexually abusing a different child — this one a 10-year-old boy.

McHugh did not tell the police he had a child molester on his hands; then shipped Millar off to the notorious St. Luke’s in Maryland for a few months; then brought him back to the diocese and “retired” him to the parish.

Eight months later, he got caught raping the 15-year-old boy by the boy’s father at the beach bathroom. The boy’s father chased him down and held Millar until the police arrived.

So why, you may reasonably ask, did the bishop “retire” him? Good question — to shuttle him away, hoping he wouldn’t rape any more boys in “retirement.”

And retirement here was key because as McHugh’s lawyer’s tried to assert in the civil suit which followed, since he was “retired,” he was no longer an “employee” of the diocese, so the diocese could not be held financially liable.

Yeah, you heard that right. If, Bp. McHugh reasoned, we could reclassify the rapist priest as a non-employee, then the diocese would be shielded from liability. You can’t make this stuff up. And as the saying goes, but wait, there’s more.

McHugh actually wrote a letter to Millar regarding his retirement and in that letter, McHugh, the bishop remember, knowing full well of the sexual assault against the 10-year-old, thanked Millar for his 41 years of “priestly goodness.”

Eight months later, Millar sodomized the mentally disabled teenage boy. And believe it or not, there’s actually more.

During the criminal trial, McHugh actually intervened on behalf of Millar who had been declared guilty and tried to have the court forgo a prison sentence and remand Millar over to the diocese, seemingly forgetting that Millar had already been under the authority of the diocese when he raped the boy that he was now facing sentencing for.

The bishop, through his attorneys, actually had the audacity to suggest to the court that Millar be handed over to the bishop who would then transfer him to a facility in the western United States where he could receive counseling.

The bishop never discussed that neither he nor the diocese have any jurisdiction in the western United States, nor that Millar would owe absolutely zero allegiance to the bishop since he was “retired.”

In short, Bp. McHugh intervened to have the rapist priest that by the way he knew had abused at least two boys, the case of the original boy not known by the court or law enforcement at the time of the sentencing, that would come out in the civil case, he intervened to have him go completely scot-free, unsupervised.

Now, to show the spiritual insanity of all this, there was at the same time this case with Millar was going on, another case with one of McHugh priests, a Fr. Murphy who had been arrested falsely for trespassing at an abortuary.

Father Murphy had, in fact, not trespassed at all but had to undergo the charge by the child-killers that are commonly hurled at prayer warriors in front of the killing centers.

Catholics directly petitioned McHugh and asked him if he would intervene in the case of Fr. Murphy, and the cold-blooded, hypocritical response of McHugh was, paraphrasing, “I will not intervene in a case I have not been invited to intervene in.”

So when it comes to protecting a known and convicted homopredator rapist, McHugh intervenes to try and get him released. But in the case of another one of his priests who had not broken the law, McHugh defers and hides behind proper decorum.

Pro-life clergy fighting abortion, drop dead. Sodomy performing priests raping teenage boys, yes.

McHugh went on to say that the request for him to do something in the Fr. Murphy abortion trespassing case was “abusive.”

Yet when the father of the 15-year-old mentally disturbed rape victim was made aware of McHugh’s letter to Millar thanking him for his “priestly goodness,” the father said he was furious about the bishop’s letter saying the entire incident “eats me up alive.”

Apparently, that doesn’t count as abusive because the bishop is allowed to dump on victims and cover-up crimes.

And by the way, just one more thing on the topic of covering up crimes, McHugh didn’t just intervene in Millar’s case knowing full well that he had sexually assaulted a 10-year-old prior to this case, he actually expressed in public, in no uncertain, clear as a bell terms, that this was for Fr. Millar the “first time to engage in such an act.”

Why not throw in perjury while you’re at it?

So who were the men and women, who were the priests, who were the lawyers working in the chancery at Rockville Center back in 2000? How do they sleep at night?

The judge in the case disregarded McHugh’s ridiculous intervention. Millar was shipped off to prison.

As for McHugh, three weeks after Millar went to prison, he died.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brnie Sanders Pushes Abortions Up to Birth: “When It Comes to Abortion, There is No Middle Ground”

Kirsten Gillibrand Lies During Fox News Town Hall, Falsely Claims “Infanticide Does Not Exist”

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.