Faria: The Electoral College in the U.S. Constitutional Republic

Journal/Website: 
GOPUSA.com
Article Type: 
Commentary
Published Date: 
Thursday, November 17, 2016

This summer at least three editorials have appeared in my local, Georgia newspaper, the Macon Telegraph, about how the Electoral College process works and explaining why our Founding Fathers created that system for presidential elections. They were not always accurate. One writer, for example, wrote, "The framers... felt the common, everyday, average, eligible voter was not intelligent, well-versed, well-read and knowledgeable enough to vote for the most qualified and best candidate.”

Although that statement is certainly another good reason to maintain the process of presidential elections today, it is historically incorrect. While it is true the Founders distrusted the idle mobs of the cities, the vast majority of Americans in the late 18th century lived in rural districts as farmers and yeomen, working the land and living from the fruits of their labors. These Americans were almost idolized by the Founders, particularly the Virginians Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Moreover, from their knowledge of history, the Founders knew the tragic fate of Athenian democracy and the death knell of the Roman Republic at the hands of Rome's notorious mobs, who incited by popular demagogues eventually sold their votes for "bread and circuses" (i.e., panem et circenses) in the forms of free gladiatorial games and other sordid entertainment.

The framers, including James Madison (photo, left), the master-builder of the Constitution, were in general very eerie of establishing a direct mass democracy on principle and founded a constitutional republic with an indirect presidential and senatorial election, hoping in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "that we can keep it!"

The fact that the framers trusted the vast majority of Americans at the time is evident in that the House of Representatives, which was to represent the people, was, and continues to be, elected by direct popular vote. In the words of Madison (Federalist Paper #57):

"Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the correspondent branch of the Legislature of the State...

"Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession, is permitted to fetter the judgment or disappoint the inclination of the people."

Most Americans during the American Revolution and Constitutional Convention were very well informed and devoured political pamphlets, such as Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and “The American Crisis” voraciously. Those were the best sellers of the day. Later, political articles published in various newspapers (to become the famed Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers) were equally devoured by the citizenry with the same avidity as today’s trendy Americans consume TV images and online news of the scandalous lives of sport figures and celebrities.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton (not to mention, John Adams) hoped an informed populace would elect to office the most virtuous and capable public servants, including the President of the United States.

Alexander Hamilton (photo, right), for example, asserted (Federalist Paper #68): "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.... we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration."

The additional reasons the Founders created the Electoral College system (and why it has been preserved) centered on the issues of federalism and fairness — e.g., preserving the delicate geographical political balance among the various urban and rural populations of the small and large states of the federal union.

Thus, the Electoral College as it stands today is more fair and more conducive to encourage candidates to campaign more equitably throughout rural areas as well as urban centers, smaller states as well as larger states, because not doing so may result in the candidates’ loss of an entire state and its slate of electoral votes, rather than just losing small clusters of votes.

Another reason concerning fairness, even more acutely, is the occurrence of natural catastrophes, such as floods or hurricanes, which can disastrously depress the turnout of voters of a region of a state or several states. Yet, with the Electoral College system, these voters are not penalized, because their states would still contribute the same number of electoral votes toward an election.

Democracy BallotAnd yet, the same earlier commentator further opined, "The biggest problem with the current system is the propensity for an election to take place that would elect a candidate who did not represent the demographics and wishes of the entire county, and only the sentiments of voters in the 11 most populous states."

But there was more; two of the writers suggested drastic solutions, either changing to a proportional representation or a popular election system. The former would be accomplished by individual state legislation, as has already been the case in the states of Nebraska and Maine. Popular election, on the other hand, would be implemented by the more difficult process of amending the U.S. Constitution by the usual process or by calling a convention to that effect. Either one of these radical options would establish a solution that essentially dismantles the Electoral College system to exorcise a boogieman and solve a non-existent problem!

Proportional representation with the fractional casting of a state’s Electoral College votes would drastically dilute the voting strength of the individual state that foolishly adopts it, making that state irrelevant in a nationwide presidential contest. If this proposal were to be uniformly adopted by the nation either by state choice or by constitutional amendment, it would defeat the purpose for which the Electoral College was wisely created by the framers, negating all of the previously outlined benefits.

Likewise, direct popular elections would dilute the power of rural areas and less populated states, so that a heavily populated section of the country, such as the Northeast, could realistically and unfairly determine future presidential elections. That is less likely now with the Electoral College system. One of the safeguards of a constitutional republic still left in place is the Electoral College, a check of federalism against a tyranny of the majority by large populous states against both small states and large but less populous areas. Its abolition would be a disaster for federalism, the balance between geographical areas, as well as Alexander Hamilton feared in Federalist #68, the passions and ferments of the mobs in the urban areas.

The truth is a non-existent boogieman is being conjured up by various political pundits to transform our Electoral College presidential elections into a European parliamentary type system, incorporating features of both proportional representation and popular elections. The boogieman is really a straw man fallacy — namely, that the theoretical amalgamation of 270 Electoral College votes by the eleven most populous but politically disparate states would dominate elections. Such possibility has never and will never happen, and is totally unrealistic and unfounded. Imagine Texas and New York with Georgia and California joining forces to steal elections and enslave the country!

The reality is that the Electoral College process has shown that it has worked as it was intended, and continues to function well. It has preserved the delicate geographical political balance among the various urban and rural populations of the small and large states of the federal union, and it has prevented small but heavily populated urban areas from dominating the process of presidential and vice-presidential elections at the expense of the rest of the nation.

Those are the main reasons we should not tinker with the Electoral College now. Republicans in particular should remember that this great nation was founded as a constitutional republic, “if we can keep it.” The wisdom of the Founders reverberates through the ages!

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Dr. Miguel A. Faria is a former Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine; Former member Editorial Board of Surgical Neurology (2004-2010); Recipient of the Americanism Medal from the Nathaniel Macon Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) 1998; Ex member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee (aka the Initial Review Group (IRG)) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2002-05; Founder and former Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002); Editor Emeritus, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS); Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995), Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997), and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002).

This article was published in GOPUSA.com on August 17, 2011, and a shorter version of this article was published in the Macon Telegraph on August 19, 2011. The need to republish this article at this time is self-evident.

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Faria: The Electoral College in the U.S. Constitutional Republic. Haciendapub.com, August 24, 2011. Available from: http://www.haciendapublishing.com/articles/faria-electoral-college-us-constitutional-republic

Copyright © 2011-2016  Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD

Your rating: None Average: 5 (17 votes)
Comments on this post

Constitutional Republic

As usual, an outstanding summary by Dr. Faria. The more I see the homicidal fanatics working to destroy our civilization, and the wimps on our side doing little or nothing, the more I recall this quotation:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."− William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming”
-----
Dr. Faria replies: I fully agree with you, Dr. Stolinky. Here are two supportive quotes regarding men of zeal and obsessed with good will & passionate intensity:

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest danger to liberty lurks in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."---Louis D. Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."--- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)

"A Republic, Ma'm, if you can keep it!"

What the poster Mr. Villageliu writes is only partially and superficially correct. I refer specifically to “the Electoral College is no longer functioning as the Founding Fathers intended, namely Alexander Hamilton. It was intended to elect a group of thoughtful well informed leaders who would in turn select from a handful of candidates the most qualified.” To corroborate the statement one only needs to read the pertinent section of the Constitution and review what Hamilton wrote on the subject. The pertinent section in the Constitution is in Article II, Paragraphs 2-4, three short paragraphs and the readers can read them for themselves. As to what Hamilton wrote explaining those paragraphs reflecting the view of the Founders, we have posted the gist of it from Federalist #68 in another comment.

True the methodology was changed to increase participation, not to decrease it as well as to satisfy the level of civics and convenience of the citizens. But this was done shortly in 1804 only a few years after the Constitution was ratified (and by most of the same Founders (1791)!

With the XII Amendment (1804) the Electoral college was modified to give more directness and power to the popular vote. The changes were and remain an improvement over the timing and methodology, of presidential elections, including the process for the separate election of President and Vice-President, increased participation, etc., but not to change the intention of the founders in preserving federalism and all the benefits I discussed in this piece, as well as in subsequent articles including, "How the Electoral College kept four California Counties from Dictating to the Entire Nation."

Finally, the writer keeps on repeating the fallacy of our form of government as a democracy, when in fact this nation was founded as a federal system, where the states preserve their own sovereignty and participate in the constitutional balance of power vis-avis, the federal government. The Constitution guarantees to all the States of the Union in Article IV, Section 4 — not a democratic, but “a Republican form of government”!

As I wrote elsewhere: Our Founding Fathers created for us a Constitutional Republic during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 and rejected mass democracy as a government subject to mass demagoguery, government not by the judicious rule of law, but by the capricious rule of man. James Madison, the Master Builder of the Constitution, asserted:

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have even been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."’

Most critical was Fisher Ames, a Massachusetts representative in the First U.S. Congress; he passionately argued that "Democracy is a volcano, which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.’ And Alexander Hamilton (1787) wrote, ‘We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."

In 1787 when the Framers finally completed the Constitution, it was – and remains – the greatest document ever drafted for self-governance, written by the heart and minds of men but inspired by the wisdom of the ages, if not the hand of God. When a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, what kind of government have you given us? He replied judiciously, "A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it."

As to the election of Donald Trump, he won, and true conservatives should rally behind him, as Democrats rallied behind Barack Obama. My initial choice was Ted Cruz, but he lost and he is now behind Trump. Opposition to Trump for personal or vague ideological reasons translates to support for the socialist Democrats and against the principles this nation was founded.--- Dr. Miguel A. Faria

Opposing Trump, Electoral College not as intended...

Although I agree in theory with Dr. Faria's analysis of the Electoral College, the fact remains that the Electoral College is no longer functioning as the Founding Fathers intended, namely Alexander Hamilton. It was intended to elect a group of thoughtful well informed leaders who would in turn select from a handful of candidates the most qualified. Instead, each candidate picks his own electors and they in turn vote for that candidate.

And during times like the present when demographics are rapidly changing, electing a candidate like Trump who loudly proclaims to represent only a declining American demography creates lack of respect for our Democracy. I liked when the Electoral College elected George W. Bush, instead of Gore. If Gore had been elected, we'd still be negotiating with the Taliban for permission to send a couple of FBI agents to interview Osama Bin Laden. And this FBI agents would have to secure a carbon credit from Al Gore or his cronies to fly all the way to Afghanistan.

As a true GOP conservative a/k/a "NeverTrump," I am willing to wait until after the 2020 Census results in reapportionment for both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives. But if the elections thereafter continue to elect Presidents and Congressmen who see their fellow Americans as threats to "White" supremacy, our Democracy will lose credibility with our younger more diverse electorate, and we will truly face a constitutional crisis.

Responding to Dr. Bogart & the Islamic-Nazi connection

I mostly agree with these excellent observations. As I study this present problem I like to go a little deeper. One must keep in mind that the Islamic radicals were descendants of the Nazi-backed Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, many are the offspring of German Nazis who fled to the Middle East after the fall of the Third Reich, adopted the Islamic faith and married local Islamic women. Once the Nazi's were crushed the Soviets became their surrogate fathers. Most of the extreme radical elements were transported to the Soviet Union for training in terrorist techniques and Marxist/Leninist indoctrination. As a result, most of what we talk about in terms of Islamic terrorists are in fact hard core leftists and this is why the other world leftist groups support the terrorists. That is not to say that the left doesn't always, in lock-step, support any of the West's enemies— they do. But these are ideological brothers and until we see this in this way— we will lose. They even state that they seek an islamic world socialist system. The long march entails destruction of all extant institutions of the West — its culture, its religions, its educational system and its economic system. Destroying the Electoral College system is critical as they depend on convincing large numbers of people in certain locations in the United States— especially along the "left coast", to vote for the main leftist revolutionary party (the Democratic party). The leftists knew that a great number of the illegal immigrants were steeped in socialist ideology and would bring their socialism with them. The greatest number settled in California. It is only the Electoral College system that protects us against such a plan, where one state can rule the rest of the country for ever. Thanks for your excellent contribution.

Russell

Hitler and Islam

Hi Russell,
It is no surprise to learn what you have just pointed out, but I did not know it, and I am very glad you brought that subject up. I did know, like many others, that Hitler admired Islam as a "fighting force", and that he gave approval for the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to form several SS Muslim units. They would deal with Jews in the Arab countries. Obviously, none in Palestine at the time, but certainly in some of the others.

There would be no way he could have let them survive if he had won the war, just as there would be no way he could let any Slavic or Baltic collaborators survive either (and the Japanese), but he found them all the equivalent of Lenin's useful idiots. It's amazing that all of these collaborating groups knew his racial ideology and still thought he was the man to support.

Try for an interesting experiment to see how a leftist reacts when you tell one how pro-Hitler so many Muslims were when they are calling Trump a Nazi for thinking of temporarily banning a few from immigrating here. ---ARB

MAF: Dr. Blaylock has just had his article on the subject published here: Blaylock RL. Immigration, truth and the delusional left. HaciendaPublishing.com. February 8, 2017. Available from: http://www.haciendapublishing.com/articles/immigration-truth-and-delusio...

America's Fathers.

This pattern you are all describing is pretty easy to summarize. You see, when the left does not get their way because it is ruled unconstitutional (whatever it might be they want at the moment), then the Founding Fathers become just another bunch of long dead old white men. Total fools from another archaic era.

When they have need of the Constitution (such as to "prove" to us that the Founding Fathers meant a well regulated militia had the right to carry firearms (and not the private citizen), then these same old dead people become far sighted geniuses.

PS. Remember that the Democrats told Bush it was a waste of time and money to bother going after Bin Laden, because another one could pop up instantly to take his place, so why the bother? Now they seem to have changed their tune, and made Obama a hero for 10,000th time because he went over there and shot Bin Laden himself!

But then I will ask them did his death make any difference in our dealings with terrorists or in our every day life? No, I don't think it did. Perhaps they were right the first time when they told Bush to leave him alone. Also, Bin Laden must still have hundreds of thousands of fanatical followers, so when they spoke of Trump recruiting Islamic terrorists with his rhetoric, I also have to ask them how many did Obama convert to hard core haters of America by killing their leader?

I'm glad he's dead. That is not the issue. As usual, leftist hypocrisy is. --- ARB

One state to dictate to the entire nation?

Popular Vote: One State Does Not Speak for the Nation
Arutz Sheva December 21, 2016

With the Electoral College having officially voted on Monday for Donald Trump for President of the United States, the explanation behind Hilary Clinton’s popular-vote “victory” is now clear.

Indeed, Clinton did win more votes across the United States by the large margin of 2.8 million. Trump garnered close to 63 million votes, while Clinton won nearly 65.8 million. However, here’s the rub: The numbers show that this entire lead, and then some, came from only one state: California. In fact, most remarkably, the city of Los Angeles alone gave Clinton 1.69 million votes more than it gave Trump. The Golden State, long noted for its more progressive and liberal tendencies than the rest of the Union, voted overwhelmingly for Hilary Clinton. She received 61.73% of the vote there, compared to just a smidgeon over half that for Trump – 31.62%. In real numbers, slightly more than 4.48 million Californians voted for Trump, while a whopping 8.75 million-plus people voted there for Clinton. In the other 49 states, Trump actually won the popular vote by a significant 1.4 million margin. In fact, some bemusedly say that California is practically a country unto itself...

These results can be honed down even more: If Clinton’s lead in just four California cities and counties were ignored, the national popular vote would have been practically tied even when taking the rest of California into account.

Specifically, Alameda County gave Clinton 418,000 more votes, Santa Clara gave her 367,000 more, and the city of San Francisco provided a margin of 308,000. Together with the 1.69 million of Los Angeles, these four alone gave Clinton nearly 2.8 million more votes – almost precisely the margin by which she won the national vote!

The above numbers, of course, do not even take into account the other problematic aspects of the California vote, which essentially allows non-citizens and illegal immigrants– of whom there are a significant amount in the state– to vote. Thus, the Electoral College can be said to have done its job: Ensuring that a wide margin of victory in one narrow geographical area not override the results in the rest of the country.

(c) 2016 Arutz Sheva, SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).

Alexander Hamilton on the Electoral College

On the Mode of Electing the President by the Electoral College
 by Alexander Hamilton (Publius) in Federalist paper #68

“... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

“It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.” From the New York Packet, March 14, 1788
----
In other words, this system, not only protects the small states and less populated areas of the country, but also guards against majoritarian tyranny and mobocracy, as later happened in the French Revolution. Recently I pointed out to a Georgian and good friend, who happens to enjoys duck hunting but he "likes democracy and feels the EC is antiquated and no longer needed." I pointed out that in this 2016 election, had we not had an EC, and instead, we were subject to the cliche of "one man, one vote," the mass democracy that our Founders feared — Hillary Clinton would have been elected president by the more populous areas of the country, ignoring the large but less populous areas, such as his own state, where Republican votes prevailed. Hillary as everyone knows, had already announced she would curtail the meaning of the Second Amendment and appoint progressive SC Justice who would share her views. How would he like to be told by the populous majority led by the progressive, urban LA, NY, Chicago, that duck hunting is prohibited and that he and his children are prohibited from duck hunting in Georgia by a tyranny of the majority elsewhere? Food for thought... hmm! ---MAF

Derelict of Duty

The current Benghazi Gate has absolutely floored me. I don't think I've ever seen such an inept Administration. They just simply do not CARE.

For well over 6 hours Obama and company watched that situation unfold. A Navy Seal could not sit back and 'refuse' to aid or assist and he ran to the aid of his Americans in need.

The Obama Administration waited and made certain ALL were DEAD before starting the rounds with all their cover up stories. And we've watched them unfold daily with a different story and a different look on each of their faces.

They should all be tried for treason,derelict of duty and Impeached~!
If I had my way they would all be alined for a firing squad.
This has boiled my blood and this Administration needs to go.
Every single American in this country should be blazing with contempt towards those in this administration that sat out on their October surprise that cost the lives of four innocent Americans in need.

I have never in my entire life time seen the need for prayer to be answered in our country as bad as we need it now.
We kicked our God out of this country and I pray daily He will indeed hear our prayer and plea and return.

How ironic. The DNC denied God three times at their convention.Our American Ambassador and those that attempted to save him were Denied Three times the Aid,air power or assistance they desperately 'pleaded for'!
That brings tears to my eyes and breaks my heart.

Undeserved praise!

Great post uneed! Finally, piecemeal, the truth about the travesty of Benghazi, Libya, and other foreign policy blunders are coming out.

President Obama became editor of the Harvard Law Review without having written anything as required by a purported legal scholar, received a Nobel Prize for achievements that he did not achieve, and given kudos by the media that he did not deserve!

We lost a highly sensitive Drone to Iran. Why wasn't this Drone destroyed before it fell into their hands? Apparently, because President Obama order that it should not be destroyed.

All we have heard from the liberal media, repeatedly, were accolades for the killing of Osama bin Laden. The truth is of course that President Obama was forced to continue the hunt begun by President Bush, and once the terrorist was found, go ahead with the his execution to decapitate Al-Qaeda's mastermind. He wasted no time to score political points and get credit for the mission. In fact, National Geographic, a liberal medium I quit subscription years ago, has planned a program on the hunting of killing of Bin Laden by the Blue Seals (who are protesting) to air this week to coincide with and influence the Presidential election for Obama.

But let us give credit where credit is due, the CIA for their relentless pursuit of Osama bin Laden and the commando Blue Seals who accomplished the mission!

I remember the letter writer, Mr Brogden (9/27/12) who wrote: "When the average American finally learns of the medieval depravities committed on our Libyan Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, (you would have to read European news reporting to get the awful truth our media refuse to report that reflects badly on their chosen one), they will be properly outraged at our disconnected, perpetually campaigning president and his lousy choice of a secretary of state."

Indeed we must depend on the BBC and other sources to continue to get the truth. We will not get it from our lapdog media, until a time lapse, if at all!

Again Great Post uneed!

But here is more on Benghazi, according to our reliable friend Matti:

Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.

Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”

Shaffer served as a senior operations officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan in 2003 and wrote a book critical of the policies there. The U.S. government purchased the entire print run for $47,000 in an attempt at censorship just before its 2010 publication, claiming it contained classified material.

Shaffer said the question now is what precisely Obama did or didn’t do in the moments he saw the attack unfolding. The CIA reportedly made three urgent requests for military backup that were each denied.

“He, only he, could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something. That’s the only place it could be done,” Shaffer said.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last week the military did not intervene because they did not have enough information about what was happening on the ground.

Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst, said the military could have had jets in the air within 20 minutes and forces on the ground within two hours.

“The issue is always political with the White House, but the secretary of defense gives the order, has to be approved by the White House, they wouldn’t pull the trigger, and it’s disgraceful,” Hunt said. “We’ve got guys dead.”

Also from Matti: "There are reports that General Carter Ham, who was commander of the U.S. Africa Command, was ordered to stand down when he prepared to send in a team to Benghazi. He subsequently stepped down from command because of personal reasons (to take care of his terminally ill wife.)

"President Obama refuses to state that he did not call off requests for help in Benghazi during the terrorist raid. General Petraeus has stated that the order for the security assets in Libya to stand down during the Benghazi raid did not come from the CIA."

I totally agree with every

I totally agree with every word you've written. Thanks.
This has really added fuel to my fire and as we both know I didn't need anymore encouragement.

I continue to pray for a landslide victory so there will be no misunderstandings that America is ready to take control of our own destiny and Refuses to be hijacked by a Marxist regime!

Electoral College

"The framers, including James Madison, the master-builder of the Constitution, were in general very eerie of establishing a direct mass democracy on principle and founded a constitutional republic with an indirect presidential and senatorial election, hoping in the words of Benjamin Franklin, 'that we can keep it!'"

Every single election season the question of why we still use the Electoral College and don't just rely on the popular vote arises. I wish everyone would just read this article so they would finally understand!

The Electoral college provides fairness!

I agree. I believe the (social) democrats are conjuring the boogieman to abandon a system that has served America well:

"The truth is a non-existent boogieman is being conjured up by various political pundits to transform our Electoral College presidential elections into a European parliamentary type system, incorporating features of both proportional representation and popular elections. The boogieman is really a straw man fallacy — namely, that the theoretical amalgamation of 270 Electoral College votes by the eleven most populous but politically disparate states would dominate elections. Such possibility has never and will never happen, and is totally unrealistic and unfounded. Imagine Texas and New York with Georgia and California joining forces to steal elections and enslave the country!"

Thank you for your post! MAF

Electoral College, Swiftboaters, Dan Rather, Hanging Chads

You should not worry. Every time a Republican wins a presidential election, the left has an "excuse" why they really did not win it. The average Democrat voter is so ignorant, they accept the party mantra without even thinking.

If it were not the electoral college being demonized, they could always fall back on racism and lack of education. Because we all know nobody can join the Republican party if they have completed high school and are not card carrying members of the Democrat social organization, the KKK.

We need the Electoral College now more than ever!

Excellent article that explains the Electoral College as established in our U.S. Constitution; how it has worked so well; how we need it now more than ever; and how we definitely don't need to tamper with it!

Calls for a Constitutional Convention...

Much has been said about convening a constitutional convention ("con con") to grease the machinery of government and allegedly fix specific shortcomings in our form of government.



One problem is that there is no "political consensus" as to whether a convention of the states can be limited to a single or a few subjects (e.g. a balanced budget, term limits, etc.). There is considerable writing expounding on this subject, and most authorities fear that instead of a single subject on the table, a convention cannot be limited--- in fact, a Constitutional Convention--- could convene, instead, that would scrap and abrogate the entire constitution of the US and a new constitution written!



We can see the danger now. The "extremists" in Congress would be marginalized, but imagine the politically-correct "moderates" in both parties, testing the waters and seeking approval from the liberal media, so they won't be criticized. Compared the pliable politicians of today with the well-read, well-rounded, historically-knowledgeable, principled Founding Fathers. The founders, few as they were (and from a new nation of only 3 million souls) were an assemblage of statesmen unparalleled in history. Compared them to the multitudes of wannabe politicians, charlatans, demagogues, and bureaucrats of today (already milking a nation of 300 million, poorly-informed inhabitants, more interested in the dissolute life of celebrities and sport figures than the family budget and the type of government that best governs least!). Reaching consensus, would be a formidable task today, as public interest and the protection of freedom would be submerged to the expediency of protecting political turf and the attainment of more political power by pandering to the growing, government-dependent "underclass"!



Our founders were well-read, and they based our founding documents on historical precedents of government, political philosophy, and Natural Rights theory.  Today, the politicians egged by the Marxist academics and the complicit media, would be writing a new, "living" constitution to fit the times!



For such a group of gifted men to join together, complimenting each other as they did was a true political miracle unlike anything in history, not even in ancient Greece with Solon (600 BC), Cleisthenes or Demosthenes or in the ancient Republic Rome under Appius Claudius and the Decemvirs  (451 BC) or Cincinatus, or even in England with the Glorious Revolution (1688).

Statistically and historically speaking it will not happen again for a thousand years!



The Annapolis convention of 1786 was called to discuss interstate commerce among the states under the Articles of Confederation.  Instead of interstate commerce, the founders in the subsequent convention wrote and frame a new constitution! Yes, James Madison had immediately seized the opportunity to overturn the Articles of Confederation, which he thought completely inadequate, and the Convention of the states in Philadelphia became in fact the Constitutional Convention of 1787.


 Then it was for the best, but today imagine the outcome, without the intellectual giants who forged our Constitution, without the principled men with firmly planted moral compasses which helped them navigate the political waters without foundering:  James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Gouvernor Morris, Benjamin Franklin, James Mason, Richard Henry Lee, etc. Today, although we have a few statesmen in our Congress, for the most part, we only have McCains, Pelosis, Reids, Clintons, Obamas, (Lindsey) Grahams, (Olympia) Snowes, etc!



So, I prefer the first method of Amendment described in the Constitution– i.e., Article V, the calling for specific proposals for Amendments from 2/3 of the members from each House of Congress. The other method convening a Constitutional Convention would be a great tragedy, the death knell of the Republic, and the beginning of a Social(ist) unlimited democracy, the rule of demagogues of the ruling circles, now unshackled by the chains of the formerly, revered document, and bolstered by the multitudes of the dependent class! God forbid!