Electoral College Nonsense

Some people, mostly democrats, think the president should be the one who wins majority vote instead of the one winning the electoral college majority. Further, it is claimed to be an unfair election if one wins the contest by securing the majority electoral vote but not the popular vote unless one is a democrat that is. This is all wrong and misguided thinking for many reasons. The beauty of the electoral college is it ensures a politician must appeal to a majority of the country not the majority of the citizens which are concentrated in a few major population centers mostly on the east and west coasts. The electoral college is the only way to ensure the politician gives consideration to all people in all areas of the country and not just a few. Without the electoral college all efforts would be directed to only those major population centers where the greatest numbers of votes are, everyone else gets ignored. The idea that it is unfair when one wins the majority vote but not the electoral vote is ridiculous for a very obvious reason. Both candidates know the rules going into this contest. They both are well aware of the rules of the game and how the game is played and agree to the rules at the outset. If one wins the majority of electors but not the popular vote then he wins, period. The loser was treated equal during the process and had nothing restricting his/her ability to make all efforts to secure the greatest number of electors. If one states the loser should be the winner because he/she won the popular vote he ignores the fact that this contest was a contest of obtaining the larger number of electors not a larger number of popular votes. You can not state the winner should be the loser because rules that did not exist while the game was being played should apply retroactively unless you re-run the contest under your set of rules and give the person, you obviously do not like, the opportunity to play by your rules and then see who wins. The winner of any game is the one who has played within the rules and directed efforts at securing what is necessary to win under the rules of the game. He would obviously play the game much differently if the rules were different and knowing who the winner would be under different rules is impossible until the game is finished. So, you can not state the loser is actually the winner because he/she has done better in regards to something not stated as the goal at the outset of the contest. Both sides had equal opportunity to win the contest and both knew what was required to win. If the majority of voters residing in the major population centers were conservative instead of liberal and we used a popular vote method of declaring the winner liberals would be clamoring for the electoral college. cjpost

Separation Of Church And State Is A Scheme

The separation of Church and State is impossible but many argue for this impossibility hoping no one catches on to their scheme. It is impossible for man to not be religious. Church and religion are synonymous in the minds of most and we all adhere to some religion or belong to some Church whether we realize it or not. Church is not a building, it is a body of like minded people who live according to a common set of principles or beliefs otherwise known as religion. Church or religion is founded either in the perceived teachings of a divine being or the beliefs of men. There are the major religions along with lesser religions, there are agnostics, atheists, and a plethora of everything in between, but their followers all have one thing in common, they are all very religious. Their religion may be the religion of God or men but rest assured, they ascribe to some belief rooted in some perception of good and bad, whether that good and bad be so to them or God, they are religious, dedicated to their beliefs, and they as a group are a Church. So, the selfless, noble call for the separation of Church and state is a scheme. It is obvious that those calling for the separation of Church and State do not call for a separation but a replacement of one Church for another. A man can not separate himself from his religion and all religions have many followers. The Church which determines good and bad based on God no longer works as a moral arbiter for those preferring good and bad being a determination of men. Replacing the traditional Church, which has always guided men's moral compass, with the religion of man might not have been important to very many before, but when a major political party needs new voters to remain in power and can not find them within the current pool it must form alliances with heretofore morally questionable factions engaged in practices considered wrong by current standards. It might be considered by some as superior wisdom to reject religion inspired by God to one inspired by men but this opens the door to an enemy of man, force. Religion inspired by God is persuasion to act a certain way, religion of men is force. One quickly finds he has no option when he is under the control of man, act as you are told or prepare to be forced into submission. That might work fine for those that agree with the religion of the men in charge but not so much not for anyone else. There is a reason nations dominated by Christian religions work and others don't. Christianity is freedom. It allows men to choose their own path without forced compliance and does not judge others that follow a different path yet loves all equally including their enemies. It is hated because it tells men the inconvenient, you are a sinner, you were born that way, and you must change or suffer eternal death. The religion of man is loved because it tells men, you were born that way and can not change-lending sanction to any behavior, there is no sin other than violating a law of man. We evolved our law and country inspired by the one religion that allows men freedom to choose for themselves whether to serve God or man, neither or both. As some men devolve to a system of serving men only they will find themselves members of a new Church that sees their freedom as the enemy to order and it will be removed quickly. cjpost

Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Sometimes A Crooked Road

Archimedes might have said the shortest distance between two points is a straight line but the highway department ignores this age old truth with wild abandon. These days it seems like any new highway construction requires drivers to travel 10 miles in the wrong direction through a maze of giant curves and overpasses where he can see the road he wants to be on 100 yards from his current position while driving the opposite direction for several miles to get back to the point he was basically at 15 minutes ago. I suppose it works better this way or possibly the government just does things different. It does not inspire confidence when we find out, as reported in the last few days, the government still uses floppy drives for much of its data storage needs. These daily revelations of outdated or simply defective methods deployed by the state on behalf of the citizen in addition to unimaginable waste and overspending such as the $640 toilet seat, might cause to wonder if we are driving the wrong direction for our own good or someone got paid based on how much he could waste between point a and point b. We know that waste is the word we use in the public sector, in the private sector it is called steal. While we are talking about banning things, I am afraid we need to ban government spending along with Muslims entering the country until we figure out what the hell is going on. cjpost

Who in their right mind would ever imagined we would elect a president that would tell us which bathroom we would be allowed to use? Of course, we have become accustomed to politicians banning sugary drinks, forcing gay marriage upon us, shoving forced health insurance down our throats, taking the criminal's side against the police, using the IRS to destroy political opposition, releasing those that kill us so they can kill us another day and on and on. So in a way letting boys take showers with girls is an idea emanating from the same defective mindset that has given us untold stupidity in abundance as common practice that should not be shocking but still is. Makes us wonder what is coming next, meanwhile as far as I am concerned all these public places can do what they wish with their bathrooms, I will be using the bushes behind the place until the people inside remember once again men and women are different. cjpost

Free Stuff Costs More

Much like the meaning of the word "pro-choice" means pro-killing of the unborn, the word "democrat" has become synonymous with "socialist." This is due to the unfortunate reality that there is no longer any distinguishable difference in the two terms. Those in this country wanting socialism have no idea what it is. The word socialism is synonymous, in the minds of the democrat voters, with, "take from the rich and give it to me." This is what those wanting it think it means, a simple, spread the wealth around, give me free stuff, stick it to the rich, wealth re-distribution scheme. A large portion of democrat voters are even supporting an openly socialist candidate for president as opposed to the usual, non-openly socialist candidate but this could be due to the repugnant personality of the front runner that is making "anyone but her" seem better to many. If these two were republicans instead of democrats the preference for the old white man over the more qualified woman would obviously be due to sexism but they are democrats, or socialists, so are not capable of anything less than virtuous behavior. In addition to her likability issues, it could be the possibility of winding up in prison being just as likely as winding up in the white house making the front runner less appealing. Of course, it could simply be that someone came along offering more free stuff than her. Obviously it has been quite a conundrum for many democrats, trying to decide between two people, one that might soon wind up in jail, the other that might soon wind up in the morgue, but, for a growing and surprising number of democrats, the possibility of more socialism, not less, over rides any concerns for the one promising to deliver it. The old man socialist will probably not win the nomination but the fact he is doing as good as he is, is somewhat alarming as it means socialists are starting to find they don't have to bother with pretending they are not socialists anymore. Both democrat front runners are offering lots of free stuff, always a requirement with any democrat voter. It is easy to understand why some people love free stuff and gravitate to the destructive socioeconomic system that claims to provide it, socialism. The problem is, socialism, nor any other system can provide that which does not exist, free stuff. That which some call free stuff is not free. Someone has to make free stuff and free stuff costs money. Under socialism, those who work are required to provide for themselves and also provide for those who do not work. So, the government takes stuff away from the producers and gives it to the non-producers. This increases the cost of the production of goods. Increased production costs are passed along to the consumers as price increases. This means everyone pays more for the stuff they purchase or produce in order to pay for the stuff others receive for free. It might appear that some get free stuff under socialism but they do not. Everyone pays more for their stuff to cover the cost of the free stuff the state gives to others. We argue among ourselves over the merits of socialism vs capitalism but this argument is actually a distraction. It might work best to simply point out that we have socialism already and it is not working. We have a hybrid socioeconomic system where capitalism and socialism both exist to some degree. Those things done by the state are socialist endeavors and we have lots of them, many would argue too many. We simply do not have the extra money to pay for more socialism, our almost $20 trillion debt tells us this. No one has any idea how that amount of debt will be paid back except offering the observation that the only way it can be done is to grow our way out of debt through an expanding economy. Socialism is a non-expanding economic model that exploits the wealth production elements it has access to in order to pay for its expanding wealth redistribution schemes. Socialism shrinks economies rather than expand them so debt increases rather than decreases under its rule. No one who knows what it is wants socialism, only the useful idiots lured by the false promise of free stuff. What those who think they want socialism really want is what we have now, a hybrid socialist/capitalist system where the producers are forced to pay for everything the parasites want. At some point very soon we will have to make massive, painful cuts in all social welfare and entitlement spending. Unless someone does indeed come up with a way for getting something for nothing the party is over and it's time to clean up the mess, not add to it. cjpost

Next President Should Have Apology Tour

The next president should, as has become customary, go on an apology tour shortly after taking office. Yes, it is a silly exercise obviously designed to elevate one's own stature and shamelessly promote one's own agenda by disparaging your country and structured in such a way as to shift all fault for that which is being apologized for to your political opposition, but it has seem to become acceptable practice so why not? One after all, could find lots to apologize for now that those who invented the practice of apologizing, for shameless political benefit, have made such a terrible mess of things. The next president can issue apologies in real time, to the actual victims of government stupidity, instead of to long ago victims, of long ago abuses, long forgotten. The new apologies will be just as useless as all previous apologies because they will not be made by the actual people who should be apologizing but by their opposition who can now score their own political points. This will even things out a bit, letting those left out of previous apologies know, we feel your pain. Reality often flies in the face of conventional wisdom and the political apology exemplifies this to a tee. The reality of the apology or the apology tour is that it is not a gracious, selfless act designed to heal wounds. When at least half your fellow group believe you have nothing to apologize for, your apology on their behalf opens a whole new set of wounds as it is an aggressive stab in the back of the very ones expending the most blood, sweat and tears to correct past sins. It is particularly offensive as the apology from leftist apologists apologizes for that which we were, but no longer are, yet by implication suggests we still are, hinting that remnants of past sins reside in the psyche of current day political opponents contorting truth and logic in eccentric fashion attempting to conform fantasy into reality with dubious reasoning designed to lend legitimacy to the need for the apology. The reality of the apology is that it is a self-aggrandizing exercise designed to further a political agenda. Most have been under the assumption the apology is just another stupid strategy of the liberal one could call, "you are bad but regretfully, so am I." You acknowledge and apologize for your own bad behavior, real or imagined and tell everyone how horrible you were. Others see you are sorry and repentant and ready to play nice. Those hearing your confession, will have an epiphany, inspired by your repentance and follow your example. This action alone, apologizing, causes a cessation of conflict and promotes a desire for a peaceful coexistence. That has never been what the political apology has ever been about. Believing the liberal is capable of empathetic thinking belies the reality that liberalism is the worship of self and not capable of thinking in terms profitable to any other than one's self. The political apology is just another manipulation technique designed to further a sick political agenda disguised like the devil in a cloak or light. cjpost.

They Kill Us But We Make Them Do It

The liberal, being intellectually superior to us, because their judgment emanates from theoretical academic reasoning instead of experience and common sense, in an effort to save us from ourselves, remind us frequently of a dubious notion of theirs regarding how we ourselves are often the cause of our enemies behavior towards us. It seems, in the mind of the liberal, we motivate the murderous thugs of the world to kill us when we offend them or their religion so any expression in that regard whether through word, video, picture or cartoon, makes us complicit with them in our own harm. This, "don't make your enemy mad or he will harm you" philosophy is a cowardly way to live and if it is true one could invite harm upon himself through expressions objectionable to one's enemy, then it is likewise true that changing your behavior to conform with your enemies wishes when he misbehaves is equally provocative. If your enemy attacks you, as standard practice, to communicate to you that your behavior displeases him and you change your behavior to conform with his standards, it takes little imagination to know what your enemy will do next time he is unhappy with you. It also mitigates and somewhat vindicates the enemy's actions, both partially absolving him from responsibility, and providing justification for, his actions. Believing you can control others, even psychopaths, by not offending them could be true at times but this timid approach yields only the possibility of success as opposed to the use of force which guarantees success. It establishes an unwritten agreement between you and your enemy that you are willing to negotiate with him for your safety and this signals weakness, along with complicity of cause, of your aggressor's actions. You are, by professing the belief that you played some role in motivating your enemy to harm you, accepting some responsibility for the outcome resulting from the violence you triggered, not to mention, offering recourse, in the form of modification of expression offensive to the aggressor. It should be obvious we are dealing with psychopathic killers who wake up every day planning new ways to kill us and all others different from them. It should also be obvious you are being played when a psychotic killer pretends to be offended by your insults. He obviously wants the cowards among your group and cowards everywhere to believe there is some rationale to indiscriminate, random murder which would be, moderate your response to his behavior, and cowards everywhere play that role superbly. Being offended is a form of asymmetrical warfare designed to change another person's behavior. When combined with a violent temper tantrum it incites fear of recurrence in the minds of those it is directed at. What the cowards of the world who promote a timid response and modification of expression on our part do not seem to understand is, our enemy is not primarily offended by how we act, they are primarily offended because we exist. When one believes he has divine instruction to kill any not like himself, unless you are willing to change not just your expression, but everything else along with it, then you must die. Your name may not be on the top of his list but be assured, it is on the list. The game he plays by attacking those that he can point to and say "he made me do it" is simply the predator biting away at the edges of a large prey that can not be taken down immediately but through a thousand cuts. Long after we stop offending them through expression they will still be killing us because we are not like them. An enemy that wants to kill you must be killed, there is no other way. The "don't make your enemy mad" theory serves the enemy quite well and sadly also serves the liberal politician who shamelessly promotes it as the excuse for their own failure when enemies are left free to kill us at will because we refuse to deal with them properly. cjpost