TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~  
Blue States Ready 
to Subvert Electoral College
Lewis Morris
.
A Central American Marshall Plan Won’t Work
by Ryan Berg
{foreignpolicy.com} ~ Since late January, thousands of would-be asylum applicants have been held up just outside of the U.S. border with Mexico, where they have been forced to wait their turn to speak to U.S. Customs and Border Protection... The growing humanitarian situation—camps for migrants are overcrowded, unhygienic, and dangerous—has renewed focus on Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s call for a Central American Marshall Plan, through which $30 billion would be channeled toward regional development in an effort to ease migration pressures. López Obrador, popularly known as AMLO, has set a goal of funding the plan by May, and U.S. President Donald Trump, eager to halt immigration to the United States, agreed to participate to the tune of $5.8 billion.  Addressing the root causes of migration—insecurity, violence, and lack of opportunity—makes sense. Both the United States and Mexico should want to ensure that emigration is an option for Central Americans rather than a necessary step to a life of dignity. However, López Obrador’s strategy rests on a common misunderstanding of the realities of the original Marshall Plan. Namely, it was not an infusion of cash that caused a European resurgence but a targeted investment that channeled and amplified an economic recovery that was already underway. It did so by placing significant restraints on the policies of recipient countries, prohibiting the nationalization of companies, and mandating strict exchange rate controls, balanced budgets, and intrusive checks on national economic policy. As a result, the $17 billion nearly $200 billion in 2019 dollars that the United States invested in Europe between 1948 and 1951 became a concerted effort to build resilient political and economic institutions that last to this day. There are reasons to be skeptical that a López Obrador-Trump partnership would do the same. First, both López Obrador and Trump have demonstrated disdain for the kinds of political institutions Central America must bolster. For his part, López Obrador reveres and patterns himself after the great revolutionaries of Mexico’s past, who preferred to lead by imposition and knew nothing of checks and balances. It is telling that one of his first major political maneuvers—an attempt to address large-scale petroleum theft—involved placing the Mexican armed forces in charge of combating corruption. The move might have been crafted to signal his seriousness, but it demonstrated that López Obrador lacked the will to undertake the painstaking work of building strong and independent institutions that could effectively regulate industries and manage corruption in the long term. Indeed, López Obrador has centralized executive power at the expense of the judiciary and legislature, run roughshod over the country’s federal system by appointing loyal superdelegates to try to displace governors and mayors, and engaged in a broader offensive against independent government institutions that pose a challenge to his accumulation of power by cutting their budgets and hollowing out their bureaucratic personnel...
Representative Jim Jordan Discusses Border 
Crisis and Congressional Impeachment Plan
by sundance
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ Ohio Representative Jim Jordan appears on Laura Ingraham show to discuss the National Security Emergency at the U.S-Mexico border and the Pulosi impeachment plan.
.
Trump threatens veto as House Dems ready sweeping campaign finance, ethics package
by Gregg Re   
{foxnews.com} ~ House Democrats are preparing to vote Friday on a sweeping ethics and campaign finance reform package known as the For the People Act... and in response the White House issued its second veto threat of the year on Tuesday, calling the proposal a reckless move that would increase opportunities for rampant voter fraud and chill free speech. The bill, known as H.R. 1, purportedly aims to eliminate “culture of corruption in Washington” and to reduce the role of money in politics. It would make it easier for citizens to register and vote, tighten election security, and establish a small-donor public matching system in congressional elections. In a direct shot at Trump, the bill would require presidents to release at least 10 years’ worth of tax returns. The bill also would ban executive-branch officials from lobbying their old agency for two years after they leave government, and reauthorize and enhance the Office of Government Ethics, which has clashed with Trump. Additionally, the Act would require groups like the Chamber of Commerce that spend more than $10,000 on political messaging to disclose the identity of their contributors who gave more than $10,000 -- prompting several business groups to raise concerns about their ability to communicate with politicians. "The $10,000 donor threshold appears designed to target business organizations while largely sparing labor organizations from disclosure of their funding sources, which are typically union dues that are far less than $10,000,"  Neil Bradley, the executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business lobbying group, told reporters on Tuesday...
.
Saving the American Dream for the Millennials
by BRANDON J. WEICHERT
{spectator.org} ~ Depending on which study you read, at least half of all Millennials would prefer to live in a socialist country... Political celebrities, such as Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), are heroes to many Millennials. Moreover, most Millennials favor a greater degree of government interference in ordinary life and are skeptical of cultural conservatism. In sum, most of the Millennials today are radically more left-wing than previous generations. Conservatives lampoon the Millennials; the “mainstream” media talks about my generation as if they’re from another planet. But, few ever attempt to understand why  the Millennials are so radically left-wing. The Millennials grew up in a schizophrenic period. Most were reared in public schools that were nothing more than left-wing reeducation camps. At these schools, Millennials were taught about how both special they were and how guilty they should feel about their country. Then, the Millennials at young ages were jarred into reality by the terrifying events of 9/11. Many of the older cohort of Millennials signed up and endured inconclusive and wasteful Mideast wars, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. After that, the Millennials — all of whom grew up in an environment that demanded they go to college, no matter what — found themselves graduating college with mostly useless degrees and staggering levels of debt. More importantly, the Great Recession of 2008 had basically destroyed any hope of a stable financial future for these people. Let us also not forget that, in order to go to college, many students took out onerous student loans that, with the economic collapse in 2008, meant that Millennials would have an even more difficult time paying down their debts. And, thanks to the chicanery of lobbyists representing credit agencies in 2005, former President George W. Bush signed a law making it impossible to discharge student debt in bankruptcy. Seemingly overnight, the Millennials were made into perennial debtors. This was not only an injustice, but it would also have a severe drag on the economy in the decades to come...  The Right must go farther and recognize the need to address the budding student loan crisis.
.
Things we know that aren't so
by Clifford D. May 
{washingtontimes.com} ~ It’s been observed — and variously attributed to Mark Twain, Will Rogers and Ronald Reagan, among others — that what gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know, but what we know that isn’t so... For example, we know that modernity, like gravity, exerts a pull that nations and their rulers, sooner or later, find irresistible. As hanoi-John Kerry said to Vladimir Putin after the Russian president invaded Ukraine five years ago: “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion.” Mr. Putin’s non-verbal reply: And why not? Also widely believed: That the arc of history bends toward justice — or at least in some meaningful direction. Such historical determinism is supported by no evidence whatsoever as far as I’m aware. A related article of faith is that nations evolve, eventually becoming liberal democracies. It’s true that Germany and Japan transformed after World War II. But that was the result of unequivocal defeat and prolonged American occupation. Meanwhile, as suggested above, post-Soviet Russia remains decidedly illiberal and undemocratic. As for nations that used to be either Soviet constituent republics or Soviet vassal states, the jury is still out. Conventional wisdom has long held that when people become wealthier, when they gain economic power, they demand political power to go with it. And they get it because those in charge conclude that governing through consent is preferable to ruling through fear. China, simultaneously becoming richer and more authoritarian, debunks that theory...
.
Blue States Ready to Subvert Electoral College
Lewis Morris:  Rather than produce a top-quality presidential candidate who loves America and respects the Constitution, Democrats are working on a way to circumvent the Electoral College, the method by which we have elected presidents of the United States since 1789. Article 2, Section 1 lays out the system. But like most other aspects of constitutional Rule of Law, leftists hold it in contempt.

The movement is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and late last month it suckered in Colorado to join its ranks. Democrat Gov. Jared Polis said he would sign the bill, making Colorado the 13th state to join.

“I’ve long supported electing the president by who gets the most votes,” Gov. Polis said. “It’s a way to move towards direct election of the president.”

Sorry, Governor, but you are woefully misinformed. “Direct” election of the president is exactly what we don’t want. It wasn’t a goal in the Constitution, and it shouldn’t be a goal now. Had we gone that way in 2016, scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton would have become president on the strength of her vote totals based almost exclusively on a handful of major urban hubs. Certainly not a candidate representative of the whole nation.

Leftists would love a national popular vote for president. It would most assuredly give rise to greater voter fraud, further fracturing of the political system, and, despite leftist claims, reduced power of individual votes.

The weapon of choice in their effort to destroy one of our last vestiges of federalism is the Compact. You may recall that the Compact, which began in 2007, calls on its state signatories to pledge their electoral votes in presidential elections to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote.

The Compact goes into effect when there are enough states on board to reach 270 electoral votes. It currently has 181. It’s unlikely to reach the magic number by the 2020 election, but it hopes to be a game changer by 2024. Fortunately, the Compact has pretty much exhausted the pool of true-blue states, making the going tougher for states with split legislatures that are solid red. Republican voters in general don’t have a problem with the Electoral College.

Leftist attempts to abolish the Electoral College are not rooted in concern for individual votes or democracy or anything else. This is evident in the hypocrisy of their scheme and the reasoning behind it.

According to the Compact, states will award electors to whomever wins the popular vote, even if that state voted for another candidate. By definition, this goes against the stated purpose of the Compact: to see that everyone’s votes are counted. Of course, 12 of the 13 states pledged to the compact all voted for both Al Gore in 2000 and scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton in 2016. (Colorado voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and is the first state to join the Compact that has voted for a Republican presidential candidate at least once in the last 19 years.)

These states are reliably blue in recent decades and for the foreseeable future, so it may seem that there isn’t really much at stake. But what about states that are purple, or even red? What would you think as a voter if the majority of your state voted for one candidate, but the state decided that, since the other candidate won the national vote, your vote was being awarded to someone you did not support? You wouldn’t feel like your vote mattered, that’s for sure.

If anything, 2016 proves that we do need an Electoral College. scumbag/liar-Clinton almost had it locked up by campaigning in only a handful of urban areas — mostly the big blue vote buckets like LA, NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco.

None of this can be explained to leftists, though. They cannot win in the arena of ideas, so they want to change the rules of the game. So far, they have been very clever about exploiting the so-called problems of the Electoral College. The first thing to remember is that there is no problem with the Electoral College. Except if you are a Democrat who can only win by pitting segments of the nation against one another.  

~The Patriot Post

Views: 10

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by Lisa BensonPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

ALERT ALERT

CONFUSION:   Pelosi Says Constitution Spells Out ‘Two Co-Equal Branches’ Of Government

No Nancy. No.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must be taking night classes at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez School of Government.

Pelosi, the 79-year-old third-highest ranking official in the U.S. government, was speaking to the Center for American Progress today when she mistakenly said there are “two co-equal branches” of government, before correcting herself to say there are three.

Watch:

“First of all, let me just say, we take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi said.

“Democrats take that oath seriously, and we are committed to honoring our oath of office. I’m not sure that our Republican colleagues share that commitment, and I’m not sure that the president of the United States does, too,” she claimed.

“So, in light of the fact that the beauty of the Constitution is a system of checks and balances— two co-equal branches— three co-equal branches of government,” she corrected with a laugh.

“A check and balance on each other,” she continued. “Con— Constitution spells out the pri— pa, uh, the duties of Congress and one of them is oversight of the president of the United States, another one of them is to impeach the president of the United States,” Pelosi said.

In November, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rallied supporters on Facebook to pitch in and help Democrats take back “all three chambers of Congress.”

“…the Progressive movement works and it wins in all districts…If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress– three chambers of government…,” she said during the virtual appearance.

She clarified that she meant the “presidency, the Senate and the House.”

According to the Constitution, the three branches of government are the legislative, executive and judicial.

Below: Nancy Pelosi is continuing to promote the false narrative that President Trump is involved in a cover-up and therefore may be guilty of an impeachable offense. Millie Weaver joins Alex to break down the propaganda being used to overturn the democratic election of 2016 

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service