Electors, electors everywhere!

There has never been an interregnum like the one we are experiencing now. Since Eisenhower beat Stevenson the first time – which is as far as my memory can recall concerning presidential events – winners and losers have been gracious. Losers, in particular, have shown their class by offering support to the winner and, if a retiring president, assistance from his own presidential experience. People then put the election behind them and wished success to the new president.

Not in 2016. This retiring president, Barack Obama, has promised only criticism and his losing party has contorted itself trying to de-legitimize the winner, Donald Trump. What is so different this year?

Eight years ago, to begin with, we elected one of the least honest men in our history. Mr. Obama was allied with some strange people, had an obscure but largely Communist past, and religious philosophies that leaned toward Islam despite his claim to have been a Christian while attending Reverend Wright’s black theology, anti-white, “America-is-usually-wrong “church. Further, Obama populated his advisory corps and top cabinet positions – especially in intelligence and Justice – with avowed communists, anti-white and anti-Christian leaders. Strange, and unique.

Mr. Obama’s domestic policies did not “tend” toward liberalism, they drove full-steam beyond liberalism toward outright statism, including many elements of the Communist Manifesto. Federalized, socialized medicine is the most notable of these, but his regulatory regime has changed the government-private relationship in thousands of ways. The Justice department has been politicized and tilted against whites extraordinarily and unprecedentedly. This changed the local and state-federal relationships in policing and law-enforcement in ways that have literally cost lives and property.

Foreign policies, including immigration policy, have changed America’s relationship with almost every nation, always to the diminishment of the United States and to the advantage of our enemies-competitors. Immigration has flooded the nation with illegal entrants who are largely not interested in “becoming” Americans, but in “changing” America, itself. Among these are tens of thousands of fundamentalist Muslim “refugees” who form enclaves – racial, tribal and religious-cultural. The premise of their differences is inherently antithetical to the U. S. Constitution and to state and local jurisprudence. It is odd to work so hard to bring non-assimilators to one’s country – stupid, unless it fulfills a purpose.

And that is the last puzzle-piece that is Barack Hussein Obama: transforming America into a non-white, non-dominant nation, weakening if not destroying capitalism and private property, and ultimately punishing white America for colonialism, slavery, success and Jim Crow repression. Nothing we’ve done to correct our errors counts. The mistakes we’ve made are irredeemable… mainly because we have resources that Obama believes must be paid in reparations. Most of what Obama attempted and achieved is uniquely threatening to the national psyche. That is the main difference in the 2016 elections.

Mrs. Clinton is, essentially, a footnote in the reaction to, and defeat of, what Barack Obama attempted. She never was a good candidate, nor an honest one. Two sublimely dishonest liberal-socialist presidents in a row are too much for Americans to acquiesce to. Donald Trump – or his equivalent – was bound to appear. He was needed, and all those who were not his equivalent fell by the wayside.

The damaging and somewhat dangerous kerfluffle over turning presidential electors into turncoats, promulgated by 2016’s losers who can’t believe they have lost their greatest opportunity in a hundred years to finally install socialism in America, has gained strength and faux legitimacy with the connivance of socialist media companies and foreign influencers like George Soros. Their actions are irrational, but liberalism is a mental disorder, after all. Their efforts rely on denying the Constitution by confusing the polity.

Electing a president is not – repeat NOT – a “national” election: it is 50 STATE elections held on the same day. This is a key factor in protecting and ensuring state’s rights in our “federal” system. There are a number of such protections built into the constitution.

Best known is the structure of the Senate. Every state, regardless of population, has equal representation: 2 senators each. Originally, Senators were chosen, selected or elected by the legislatures of the several states. Their job was to represent the STATES and not the body politic – that job was reserved for the House of Representatives. Ours is a republic and not a democracy, per se. Our state representatives, chosen through democratic processes, are supposed to employ their wisdom and intelligence – presumably the qualities that caused their own election – to choose the two senators who would best represent their respective states.

Unfortunately, the need for statesmanship in senators has been overridden by partisanship, something the Founders warned against repeatedly. Corruption and anti-republicanism finally enabled progressives to promote the 17th Amendment making direct popular election of Senators part of the Constitution. Many states had made their legislative selection processes subject to a popular “primary” election. Selection problems had been leaving some states without Senate representation for long periods, so the 17th resolved that. But the change to popular election fulfilled a progressive dream of controlling the Senate through partisanship, weakening the federalism embodied in the constitution.

One need look only to the “work” of Harry Reid, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and other senate boobs to see that direct election is not the best solution. The rights and powers of states have suffered as a result.

In any event, holding 50 elections simultaneously in no way causes California’s big-majority election of the Clinton California electors, to make a particle of difference in the narrower majority election of Trump Michigan electors, or Pennsylvania electors or those of any other state. Adding up totals from 50 SEPARATE elections is a complete red herring: meaningless and meant to confuse. News organizations should stop doing that.

They might as well add up the votes in 435 House elections and worry about who got the larger total in those 435 separate elections: just as meaningless. Presidential electors are running in STATE elections – 50 of them. Adding up their totals is simple-minded, obfuscatory, Progressive bullshit.


President Barack Obama holds a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Jan. 31, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)
It’s not easy… changing the course of the ship of state, that is. Building a Great Pyramid, that’s easy. Transitioning from communism to capitalism – not so much. Worse, every move a newly elected president must make is nit-picked, criticized, undermined, called fascist and/or racist by the dominant media.

The real threat of the incoming Trump administration is that the new president may keep even some of his campaign promises. How dare he?

Those of us who were willing to overlook Trump’s several lacks of finesse and glibness, thought we could discern his visceral messages that mattered, “MTM’s.” One MTM is stopping illegal immigration. Viscerally, Americans recognize that inviting millions of very different people into our midst – people with different cultures, beliefs and languages who neither wish to adopt our culture and language nor are forced to for personal or economic survival, MAKES NO SENSE. What folly such a policy would be. What a treason it would represent.

We are transitioning from an administration whose intention it was to change, literally, the color of America. Mr. Obama is governed by a number of hatreds, among which are hatred of colonialism, hatred of white “supremacy” and hatred of capitalism. One might also discern a hatred of the Constitution in there, somewhere. What an odd person for Americans to elect.

Mr. Trump has been sounding like he may not be as concerned about the illegal entrants already here as are we who voted for his promised change. Let’s monitor what happens to the border control he also promised, very carefully. No matter how “big” we think we are in the U. S., having escaped full-scale attacks or invasion – so far – our culture is under assault, largely from confused domestic enemies who find it satisfying to hate America’s imperfections while celebrating the imperfections of others. It’s perverse. For too long we have relinquished power, including power over education, to those who hate the premises of America. Importing people of vastly different ethics – particularly Muslims – whose belief structures are antithetical to our constitution, is pretty stupid policy.

Another big MTM is about re-energizing the American manufacturing and jobs engine. Can a president actually do this? Maybe. Like most of Washington – a construct of creative bullshit – (sorry, sort-of) “managing” the economy is mostly wishes and hope. Tax cuts can surely help as lower taxes will, for a while, encourage the PRIVATE economy to make good domestic decisions and investments. Production, productivity and employment should improve. But Trump’s choices for Treasury and Chairman of The Council of Economic Advisors (White House) are from Goldman Sachs, a mendacious Wall Street behemoth, and this exposes a serious flaw in Trump’s economic courage.

Between the Federal Reserve (neither federal nor a reserve) and the Wall Street financial manipulators like Goldman Sachs, the United States has been led into astronomical debt. Trump, and all of us, need to recognize that just as every dollar of taxes is a loss of citizens’ freedom, every dollar of federal debt is a loss of national sovereignty… and loss of flexibility to manage our own domestic, foreign and military affairs. What’s a president – or a people – to do when they are stuck in a box of perpetual servility to banks?

One of the changes, perhaps the most significant of changes, that Americans tried to bring about in November, 2016, is the upside-down relationship between our supposedly sovereign nation and these blood-sucking banks. For shame. Trump has already proven to be deaf to our outcry and he’s not even in office yet. Usually newly elected presidents don’t start giving us the finger until around April first. So, many people’s concerns about Trump’s impact on – or proximity to – conservatism have some validity. We’ll see.

Finally, naming Rex Tillerson to head the State Department. Feelings are mixed, obviously, but there are positives. On the face of it there is an element of putting oligarchs in public charge of “the world.” Trump’s a business mogul and must believe that only business moguls are smart enough to manage big systems like the U. S. government. For everyone who has gained the impression that businessmen are inherently dishonest – as popular media consistently portray – giving one political power is the worst possible outcome. “They’re all crooks!”

Even worse, Tillerson is in the OIL business, helping to scourge the earth while stealing money from everyone. Woe is us. Some perspective is required.

Exxon-Mobil is certainly huge, deals in global commodities and must negotiate with virtually every country in order to maintain stable supplies and stable markets. Well, it’s time Americans admit – or recognize – that most of what foreign policy comprises is maintaining and defending global commerce, free access to the seas and stable markets and prices. It is rarely a pretty business, but undeniably vital.

And, it’s not simply oil. Oil is the current (for a hundred years) leading commodity against which almost every other commodity (corn, wheat, soybeans, beef, pork, gold, uranium and… on and on) is valued. The U. S. dollar is how oil is valued and oil is how the dollar is propped up in the face of unbelievable debt. There may be more sense behind having this particular mogul in charge at State than first appears. Exxon-Mobil is pretty-well run, after all.


riot-3If you are rescuing a family, maybe several families from, say, a flood, and to do so you are wading through the flood waters, pulling the boat carrying those you are rescuing (you also brought warm food, hot chocolate and dry clothes for everyone), should the people in the boat be whipping you to get the rescue done more quickly?

I can hear sensible people saying “No, how could they?” But, when the process is not taking place in a boat but in our income-redistributing welfare morass, then the rescued can vote their rescuers into greater hustle. Suggesting that they should not be voting is seen as extreme cruelty. Hmmnnh.

Ostensibly smart professors are attempting to “teach” student snowflakes about “white privilege.” Apparently, in their history-debasing opinions, being white means being guilty of… well, everything. Surely there cannot be any differences in productivity, inventiveness or innovation between peoples, groups, races, tribes or religions – those differences that we white people are supposed to celebrate… those differences? When seen in a macro view, “white privilege” is the politically (corrupt) correct way to undermine Judeo-Christian heritage, ethics, beliefs and the enlightened philosophies that underpin the United States.

Law originated among small populations based on self-interest of protecting oneself and one’s family. That meant protecting food sources, safe shelter, wives and children. Very soon it became clear that groups (tribes) of families were a source of safety and better food security. Agreements were made as to what land “belonged” to one group and where the boundaries were. The “laws” between groups or tribes were laws only because of the ability to enforce them.

Within groups natural differences manifested. Some worked harder or smarter than others. Some cheated or stole; some sacrificed to help others; some were better boundary protectors; some were better hunters; some, better gatherers. Economics developed not by theory, but practicality.

“Treaties” were negotiated with other tribes, bound in fact by military power. Wars were prosecuted over various encroachments including of land, of resources and even of women. Slavery of the defeated generally resulted. Still, there was progress, spurred by conflict and deprivation… and shared beliefs, ethics and morals. Groups comprised of members who shared concepts of “right” and “wrong” were stronger. Inevitably, rebellion against those concepts resulted in punishment, death or banishment.

With closer-knit communities of central buildings and surrounding farm or grazing lands, ever more rules of behavior were required and codified. Outside of each “city,” however, military strength made the “laws.” Slavery was common, especially of subjugated peoples, and of them, especially of those who had resisted subjugation the most or who had attacked the victors. Competing religions accentuated conflict and subjugation.

Still, economics spurred trade over greater and greater distances – economics spurred by envy and deprivation. Some tribes or, whole kingdoms, were better at producing certain goods. They may have had the good fortune of possessing lands with suitable ores, or which grew coveted spices or which had good salt. Trade and economics had their own rules and ethics. Soon there were contracts.

Two areas of Earth saw great invention and innovation: China, basically, and Europe from south to north. One, the far East, remained insular and severely hierarchical; the other, the “West,” based in small, competing nations, fought through serfdom and developed democracy, economic freedom and a remarkable urge to explore and colonize. From competition came freedom and the great sciences and mental explorations.

It is all rooted in the sweep of Judeo-Christian philosophy – the heritage the “West” is squandering, undermining and cheapening in a headlong rush to out-think God. Sadly, our federal government – and many states’ governments – have devised new “rights” and sanctions that reach directly to from-the-pulpit homilies and even scriptural readings. This in the one nation founded upon religious freedom.

America was founded by, in effect, Hebrews! That is, as the tribes of Israel and Judah were scattered by the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians, ultimately migrating into Europe and forming the royal houses of virtually every nation there, out of those nations came very strong people who sacrificed everything to get to the “New Jerusalem.” We are fools to deny the history of, well… white, Judeo-Christian peoples.

Is our success due to the “choosing” of the Israelites? Let’s leave that to religious scholars and recognize what may be proven: that Judeo-Christian mores include intellectual strength and education, strong moral strictures… and sacrifice – for family, for others, for the future. This is not in defense of churches, but of history. The economics derived from that belief-structure produced the greatest personal freedoms, scientific advancement and standards of living. Now we are running away from it, scorching the Earth as we go.

Is the new hatred of whites, Jews and Christians most particularly, rational? We are not perfect and do not claim to be. Neither are those who would destroy us. Will our haters willingly destroy this nation in order to make whites pay a price for imperfection?