Who won a "Mandate of the People" - the Red or the Blue? -- (as much as I object to being referred to as a "Red.") The Popular Vote on the East and Left Coasts was the expression of "The Will of the People" ???
Counties won by Bush: 2,434 -- Counties won by Gore: 677
Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million -- Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million
Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 -- Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
States won by Bush: 29 - States won by Gore: 19
Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 0.1 -- Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2
Thank God for the Electoral College! Al the Bore has apparently won the so-called Popular Vote, with the usual massive vote-fraud of the Democrats in places like California, New York, Florida, Wisconsin, and New Mexico; but he is perhaps on his way to losing the Electoral College. Therefore, for the first time, the mainstream media has discussed and exposed the American public to knowlege of The Electoral College, Voter News Service, and other things we have never had to worry our empty little heads about before.
Liberals are whining and protesting that "the will of the people" is being thwarted, because the "Popular Vote" elected Gore. Democracy is in Real Trouble! (It always is). And who is this Electoral College that we never heard or worried about before, to overturn the Will of the People? It's Un-Democratic! yada. yada. yada.
Perhaps these folks missed civics class in high school, or were too busy learning Diversity and Multiculturalism to learn their own culture and form of government; but we do NOT live in a democracy. Our form of government is a Representative Constitutional Republic. The Constitution says nothing about an election directly by the people. Article II does not give anyone other than electors a right to vote in presidential elections.
One look at the map can tell you that the Will of the People, throughout most of America, was obviously in favor of George Bush. Only in very populated, Democratic strongholds like L.A., San Francisco, Seattle, and New York; and minority areas of Northern New Mexico, along the Mississippi River, etc., did Gore do well. The rest of the country voted for Bush.
The "Popular Vote," once again, gives us leaders chosen by California and New York. What is so Democratic about that, I ask you, since California and New York are not in the least representative of the diversity of values in our Nation? For the past 50 years we have had the "kulture" of the East and Left Coasts shoved down our throats 24 hours a day through television and the mass media; but it is not Our Culture. Talk about "disenfranchisement" !!! For those of us in "Fly-Over Country," it is as though we are living in an occupied country... and perhaps we have been, since Lincoln threw out the Constitution, instituted Military Dictatorship, and invaded the South in the War of Southern Independence.
The Imperial Presidency began with Lincoln, ruling by executive decree and military courts, and many Presidents since have used those powers. Lincoln did not "preserve the Union" -- he destroyed it, and set up in its place a new Federal Empire, with almost unlimited power over the former voluntary Union of the States. The power of the Federal Government has increased far beyond that envisioned by the Founding Fathers. And within that government, the Executive Branch brandishes its power to execute law with almost unlimited scope. Clinton has taken millions of acres of land out of public use with the stroke of a pen, with little or no public input, while the Federal government does as it wishes, without restraint of law... witness the recent actions of the ATF or the IRS.
As Paul Begala, former White House aide, said of Clinton's use of executive powers, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." What is so "cool" about turning back the clock 800 years to 1215, with the pre-Magna Carta doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, and King John's pronouncement that "The law is in my mouth"? Shall we do away with the rights and freedoms we and our ancestors have fought and died for, over the past centuries, and once again give demogogues the power to make law with the "stroke of the pen"?
It was for precisely this type of abuse that the Founding Fathers, while debating our form of government, decided on the use of the Electoral College, rather than election through the popular vote. And for very good reason. History has shown that a popular politician could set himself up as a modern Caesar, if he promised the public enough "bread and circuses." Other popular excuses have been the threat of internal or externals enemies, such as the Jews during the Nazi era; and "public safety," which was used as reason enough during the French Revolution to execute thousands, and which Lincoln used throughout the "Civil War" to close newspapers and imprison editors and other dissidents without trial or habeas corpus.
It was the Electoral College which brought a semblance of Constitutional Government back to our country. After the War of Southern Independence, the South was under military rule, the "Reconstruction." Black militias, composed of former Black Union soldiers, intimidated and abused White Southerners, while thousands of unemployed, homeless former slaves cheered them on. "Carpetbaggers" from the North came looking for the spoils of war. A newly formed political party, the "Union League," encouraged Blacks to vote their way, through bribery or threat of violence, while the Southern Whites were dis-enfranchised, and had no say in their society. 3 1/2 million former slaves were suddenly set free on a conquered, destroyed Southern economy, and told, "now you are free, good luck." These former slaves were not wanted in the North, where the "Black Codes" in many Northern states forbid the settlement of Blacks... (why do you think the "Underground Railroad" went all the way to Canada?)
This madness went on for over ten years, until the election of 1876 caused an "electoral crisis" such as we have now. Tilden initially won the popular vote, but a compromise in the Electoral College over disputed electoral votes of three Southern states were awarded to Hayes, and he was elected President. That compromise involved the removal of Federal troops and bureaucracy from the South, and along with them went the carpetbaggers.
Without the Electoral College, the former sovereign states would have been, and would be, powerless against the newly established Federal Empire. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, which some say was not legally ratified, giving the right of electing Senators to the people rather than the states, the states lost their last voice in national government.
At one time I too was in favor of abolishing the Electoral College. In the early 1990s, I was assigned to present a "persuasive argument" for a public speaking class at New Mexico State University. I chose to present a speech arguing for the elimination of the Electoral College. In my ignorance, and with a sense of outraged indignation at the injustice of it all, I spoke of how the Electoral College had several times in the history of our country thwarted the "Will of the People" by electing a president against the Popular Vote.
The calls for the elimination of the Electoral College have already begun. Hitlery Clinton, who has "won" the Senate seat in New York through massive voter fraud, is already suggesting we alter our Constitution. "We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago.... I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people."
In the Las Cruces Sun News (Nov. 11, 2000), an NMSU Government professor, Nancy Baker, is quoted as saying, "I think the Electoral College is anti-democratic. That was its original purpose - to be anti-democratic." She said the founding fathers did not trust the common people. "They feared that the people were unpredictable and that, without the Electoral College, they would elect a demagogue."
It's true, the ignorance of the common people has twice elected a demogogue this decade - William Jefferson Clinton.
She further said, "...we've opened up the voting franchise dramatially since 1789 and that suspicion of the people is antiquated."
(Just as the Constitution is "antiquated" and not suitable to our Modern Age? People have not changed in 200 years. Human Nature has not changed one bit since Athens tried "democracy," and the Roman Republic degenerated into a dictatorship of popular politicians, showering the public treasury onto the crowds. I am convinced the citizens of 1789 were more literate and politically aware than the modern products of public education.)
You would think that Senators and Government professors would know that we do not live in a democracy. Perhaps they do know, however, what ever Communist knows... the American people are opposed to Communism, but Socialism can be achieved by preaching Democracy and equal outcomes, rather than Jefferson’s republican principle of equality before the law.
We already know Hitlery's background as a radical leftist. We would expect her to promote Socialism disguised as Democracy, and propose that we alter our form of government. Professor Baker, however, as a professor of Government at the university level, should know better.
True, we have opened up the voting franchise, and now every citizen (and even non-citizens, according to the Democrats) can participate regardless of race, gender, intelligence, or any other qualifying criteria. Now that any idiot can vote, is that cause for celebration? "...suspicion of the people is antiquated?"
I do not agree. From what I have seen, the education and common sense of the American people have deteriorated in the past decades, thanks to the liberal agenda and its educational system. It is obvious that the common people of our nation are more uneducated, ignorant, and, through the efforts of mainstream media, susceptible to propaganda than ever before in our nation's history. Lincoln had to close newspapers down. The liberal mainstream media of today gladly participate in the deception of our people, and those that will not go along, get a visit from the IRS.
How can one trust in the common sense of a people who vote based on the "good looks" of a candidate, or how well he kisses his wife? Why did 90% of Blacks vote for Gore, and believe the anti-Republican propaganda of the Democratic party, when historically it is the Republican Party which has been the champion of the Black people?
Between 1856 and 1860, the Republican Party replaced one of the major political parties of the time, the Whigs. Coming into existance as a third-party, they were able to do this, according to professor Baker, when they, like other third-party movements, "...championed newly important issues that cut deeply across existing party lines.
An example is the Republican stand against slavery in the 19th century."
Contrary to Democratic propaganda, the Republicans championed and passed the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s, against the opposition of the Democrats (including Al Gore, Sr.). The Republican Party came into existence, in part, for precisely that reason: to abolish slavery and give Blacks participation and status as citizens of the United States. How quickly the Democrats have re-written history, and now present themselves as the champions of civil rights and the oppressed.
That is precisely why the so-called Popular Vote is so dangerous to our liberties and our freedoms. In an age when the media is willing to present any propaganda, at any cost, to aid in the victory of their chosen candidates, the common people who rely on the mainstream media for their information are dangerously ignorant of the truth concerning issues and candidates.
"The... sole condition required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced, as it were, to a single principle." Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol.2 p. 302
There is one aspect of the days of "Jim Crow" from the Democratic South with which I have to agree... the infamous "literacy tests." A citizen who wishes to exercise their right to vote should at the very least be capable of reading and understanding the ballot. (A requirement the citizens of Palm Beach were not capable of, apparently, but which the Supreme Court has agreed with, by the way). They should also have a basic understanding of our system of government, which is a Constitutional Republic, (not a Democracy, which is so often repeated these days).
After attending a University as an older student, and witnessing the appalling ignorance, mis-education and willingness to believe liberal propaganda of the younger students, I would also be in favor of raising the voting age to thirty or so. Only later in life, when a person begins to gain a little wisdom and understanding of life, how the world really works, and its political realities, does one have the necessary skills to make an intelligent decision.
Of course, that is assuming they have access to the necessary knowlege of the issues; which, thanks to the wonders of the Internet, is possible these days. If they only get their information from the mainstream media, their college professors, and other partisan outlets, their information is woefully one-sided -- in other words, propaganda.
In a nation of mis-education and propaganda, it is easy to fool and persuade voters into believing the party-line. We are seeing this now, as the Democrats spin the outcome of this election every which-way to the winds, to see what the gullible public will believe, and what they can get away with.
In New Mexico, my home state, it was reported today, November 11, 2000: "In Dona Ana and Valencia counties, GOP state representatives filed an emergency request with county judges Friday evening to impound the votes in those counties to preserve the integrity of the votes, citing possible problems with the vote counting."
I am personally aquainted with voter fraud in New Mexico. In 1992, I attempted for the first time to participate in my American right to vote. After denying me the opportunity to hear the candidate of my choice, from the Independent Party, to participate in the debates held at the university, because they were not a "major political party," I decided to vote for the first time. My real political education was about to begin.
At my polling place, a Volunteer Firehouse, I innocently asked a poll worker how one voted for "write-in" candidates. I was ignorant of the procedure, having never voted before. She told me to enter the booth, vote for the candidates of my choice, and then I could vote for "write-in" candidates when I came out. When I exited the voting booth, I went up to her, and said I was ready to vote for my write-in choice. She then told me it was too late - I had already voted, and I was forced to leave the polling place.
These poll workers were, I believe, volunteers from the local League of Women Voters, a supposedly "independent and objective" group. They were obviously trying to steer (or cheat) people away from voting for any but their chosen candidates. Is this their idea of Democracy? The liberal mind seems to believe that any action is justified "for the greater good." Even if it involves lying, cheating, and stealing an election. That "the ends justifies the means."
What a corrupt, sick and twisted sense of history and civic responsibility. These pious, fanatical liberals believe that their cause is so righteous that they are justified in any deception to achieve their ends. To them, any act or mis-direction of someone who does not agree with their political philosophy is justified. The Catholic Inquisition had a similar mind-set, and Political Correctness leads nowhere else but to the Inquisition and it's list of "Thought Crimes."
In order to implement "the will of the people" as they interprete it, they are willing to subvert our Constitution, our laws, common decency, and the values of Western Civilization that have enabled us to advance to the modern world we live in.
We are witnessing the Fall of Western Civilization before our very eyes, in our lifetime, as Environmentalism, Multiculturism, and other decadent liberal values destroy our society. But look around -- do you see African-Americans, American Indians, Hispanics, Environmentalists or anyone else living any other lifestyle except Western Civilization? Are they living in tents, wearing animal skins, and hunting or farming for their living? Even the most fanatical environmentalist can most likely be found driving a car, wearing modern clothes, living in a home with modern plumbing and appliances, and shopping for their food in a supermarket.
They don't intend to give up these modern conveniences, they only want YOU to, for "the sake of Mother Earth and the poor people of the Earth." They want you to lower your standard of living and learn to do without, rather than help everyone raise their standard... just as they do with our educational system... down to the lowest common denominator.
They have brainwashed our children into believing that any act to further "the cause" is justified. In this election, college students are bragging they voted numerous times for Al Gore. Their cause is righteous, and God help you if you stand in their way. The "Will of the People" is on their side.
These are the "Brownshirts" of tomorrow... the "True Believers." Today they are protesting. In a future ruled by fanatics such as Al Gore or Clinton, they will be helping to round up "dissidents" and "reactionaries" such as Christians. And they will probably suffer the same fate as the original Brownshirts, once they have fulfilled their role as "Useful Idiots."
There is nothing inherently, magically wonderous in "the will of the people." It was the popular vote of the people of Germany that elected Hitler to office. When elected, they could not know what he was to become, or what he had in mind for the future of his country. All they knew was they were electing a National SOCIALIST to office.
In fact, the intelligence and common sense of the common people may be deteriorating in our modern age. As Aldous Huxley explained, in Brave New World Revisited:
"In the bad old days children with considerable, or even with slight, hereditary defects rarely survived. Today, thanks to sanitation, modern pharmacology and the social conscience, most of the children born with hereditary defects reach maturity and multiply their kind. Under the conditions now prevailing, every advance in medicine will tend to be offset by a corresponding advance in the survival rate of individuals cursed by some genetic insufficiency. In spite of new wonder drugs and better treatment (indeed, in a certain sense, precisely because of these things), the physical health of the general population will show no improvement, and may even deteriorate. And along with a decline of average healthiness there may well go a decline in average intelligence.
...let us consider the case of the rich, industrialized and democratic society, in which, owing to the random but effective practice of dysgenics, IQs and physical vigor are on the decline. For how long can such a society maintain its traditions of individual liberty and democratic government? Fifty or a hundred years from now our children will learn the answer to this question."
That time is now very soon. The people have now been sufficiently "dumbed-down" for them to accept almost any proposition put before them by government, if they believe it will benefit them directly.
As has been said, "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." What have we learned from Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, concerning Gun Control, Government Propaganda, or the educational system being used in the interests of the State?
Even before the American revolution had begun, a Scottish economist, Alexander Fraser Tyler, warned the Founding Fathers of the dangers of democracy. He had studied the history of the Athenian republic, and found that it had fallen because of an inherent weakness in democracy... allowing the ignorant, easily-manipulated common people to determine government policy.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage."
We, the American People, had abundance in the 1950s, and selfishness in the 60s. From the 70s to the 80s we went from complacency to apathy; and now, we seem to be moving from apathy to dependence, and soon into bondage.
In the Forward to Brave New World, Huxley says "Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism... A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers."
Huxley also spoke, in one of his other works, of how, in the 19th century, Bismarck was "forced" to take over leadership of the German Republic, and implement a dictatorship, in order to "save the Republic." Exactly what Lincoln did when the South seceeded over the economic tyranny of the North. I believe this is the plan of the Clintons, the Democrats, and their fellow One Worlders -- to do away with our Republic, in order to "save it." The impeachment trial was a "trial balloon" in creating a schism in the mind of the public... A 50-50 vote... not guilty, but not innocent. Sounds familiar doesn't it -- similar to the results of our recent Popular Vote for President?
We may soon have on our hands a "Constitutional Crisis" or "National Emergency" that requires Clinton to remain in office, in order to maintain order, and save us from our indecision. Geraldine Ferrarro has already sent up the "Trial Balloon" for this scenario, to see how it flies, and prepare the mind of the public.
On the other hand, I wouldn't put too much faith in the Republican Party, either. All these mind games have got conservatives, and even independents such as myself, throughout the country, cheering for the Republican side and George W. Bush... not something I would normally do. At least the Republicans seem to stand for the Rule of Law, and fair play. That's part of their problem... they believe in fairness, and play by the rules, while for liberals, it's "the ends justify the means." It remains to be seen if the Republicans will truely uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Whatever the outcome of this operation, it seems it has been an extraordinary Black Ops psychological campaign. Which Major Party, One World candidate will come out on top? Do I really care?
I think I will put my faith in the LORD, and let God sort it out. His candidate has already won the most important election, and all the re-counts in the world will not change the results of His Election.
Matthew 7: 15-19
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."