Jefferson on Islam

Democrats have long heralded Thomas Jefferson (along with Andrew Jackson) as the founder of their Party. ⁱ They traditionally hold annual Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraising dinners, and President Obama is one of their most sought after speakers. But this past year, Democrats began to remove any mention of Jefferson’s name from their functions. ⁱⁱ They claim that this is because Jefferson was a bigoted racist, ⁱⁱⁱ but this excuse is historically inaccurate, based on an errant modern portrayal. ^iv

If you doubt this, ask yourself why black civil rights leaders over the past two centuries (such as Frederick Douglass, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Benjamin Banneker, Francis Grimke, Henry Highland Garnett, and so many others) openly praised Jefferson as a racial civil rights pioneer and champion, ^v as did abolitionists such as John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and others. ^viThey recognized that Jefferson led a vocal lifelong campaign to emancipate all slaves in the United States, but that the laws of Virginia prevented him from freeing his own slaves. (All of this is covered in my new book, “The Jefferson Lies.”)

The real reason that Democrats should discard Jefferson is that he held nearly no policy position similar to those Democrats hold today. Consider fifteen major categories where the policies of Presidents Jefferson and Obama are opposite.
1. RADICAL ISLAM AND THE WAR ON TERROR. President Obama’s approach to the War on Terror throughout his two terms has been non-engagement. As described by one national political observer, he “feels the U.S. should do as little as is politically feasible in battling these groups overseas. Bump off some of their bigwigs by drones, bomb them from time to time with air strikes and provide a bit of training and military assistance to their foes.” ^vii In attempting to negotiate and pacify rather than annihilate and defeat, he has spent $779 billion on the War on Terror, ^viii making it a big-ticket item in his administration.

When President Jefferson took office in 1801, he had been personally dealing with Muslim nations for almost two decades, and the terrorism issue was also a big-ticket item for him as well: twenty percent of the federal budget was being spent to mollify radical Islamicists. ^ix

By way of background, in 1784 shortly after the close of the American Revolution, Congress dispatched Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin as diplomats ^x to negotiate with five Muslim nations attacking American ships and citizens in the Mediterranean area ^xi (the same general region where conflict is still occurring today). At that time, America had no military capable of traveling overseas to destroy the seedbed of the war-mongering Islamicists plaguing Americans, so America resorted to large payments of money and goods in attempts to purchase peace and end the attacks. This unhappy policy, adopted under the Confederation Congress, continued under President George Washington.

Washington expressed his open frustration with this approach, declaring:

Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence. ^xii

As he neared the close of his presidency, he requested that Congress appropriate money to build a navy capable of traveling to the Mediterranean to smash the Islamicists. ^xiii Congress did, and the navy was constructed under President John Adams, ^xiv who became known as “The Father of the Navy.” ^xv But Adams refused to use the new navy, continuing the payments instead.

When Jefferson became president, his long experience with Muslim leaders and nations taught him there were three possible solutions: (1) continue to rely on negotiations and diplomacy, which also required large concessions of rights and payments of monies in hopes of placating the terrorists, (2) limit American lifestyles and activities by keeping American business interests and shipping out of that predominately Muslim part of the world (which would destroy American commerce), or (3) use decisive military force to put an end to the attacks. ^xvi Jefferson discarded the first option out of hand:

I was very unwilling that we should acquiesce in the . . . humiliation of paying a tribute to those lawless pirates. ^xvii

Jefferson had earlier concluded that the second option was bad policy, explaining:

The persons and property of our citizens are entitled to the protection of our government in all places where they may lawfully go. ^xviii

He favored the third option:

I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace through the medium of war. ^xix The power of making war often prevents it, and in our case would give efficacy to our desire of peace. ^xx

There were several reasons Jefferson believed this option was the best policy:

Justice is in favor of this opinion; honor favors it; it will procure us respect in Europe (and respect is a safeguard to interest) . . . [and] I think it least expensive [and] equally effectual. ^xxi

Understanding that it was time to end terrorist attacks against American persons and interests, he deployed an expeditionary force under General William Eaton and Commodore Edward Preble to exterminate the radical Islamicists. ^xxii The terrorists, after five years of being pounded by American military superiority, decided the price they were paying was too high and thus signed a treaty of peace. ^xxiii
Interestingly, Jefferson understood that in dealing with Islamicists, a drawdown of American forces was bad policy – that an insufficient application of American strength would cause the enemy to escalate their attacks. He therefore initiated a military surge, explaining to Congress:

There was reason . . . to apprehend that the warfare in which we were engaged with Tripoli [Libya] might be taken up by some others of the Barbary Powers [Algiers, Tunis, Morocco, Turkey, et. al]. A reinforcement therefore was immediately ordered. ^xxiv

He also related to Congress an account of how an Islamic warship had attacked a much smaller American vessel and the result was “a heavy slaughter of her [Islamicist] men, without the loss of a single one on our part.” ^xxv He observed:

The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race and not to its destruction. ^xxvi

We sought peace not because we were weak (as had been the American situation for the previous two decades) but rather because our use of superior military force drove the Islamicists to peace, thus ending further human devastation at their hands. We were willing to take lawless lives in order to save countless times more innocent ones. Waging war in this situation was thus humanitarian.

Obama holds the opposite view. His refusal to use military force has led to an increasingly strong Iran ^xxvii(the chief global sponsor of terrorism ^xxviii) as well as the explosive growth of ISIS, ^xxix which has been responsible for thousands of civilian murders. ^xxx ISIS acknowledges that the only army it fears is that of Israel, ^xxxiand consequently it has largely refrained from martyring Jews (although it loudly blusters about doing so ^xxxii) But fearing nothing from America, it openly martyrs Christians. (It is a lesson of note that when ISIS murdered Egyptian Coptic Christians, Egypt responded promptly and with decisive military force ^xxxiii and further martyrdoms halted.)

Jefferson’s use of unequivocal military force against terrorists brought America its first respite in the decades old Islamic attacks but Obama’s refusal to do so has caused the numbers of murders committed by Islamicists to soar. President Obama would have done well to have heeded Jefferson’s observation that:

[H]istory bears witness to the fact that a just nation is taken on its word when recourse is had to armaments and wars to bridle others. ^xxxiv

2. THE “RELIGION OF PEACE.” President Obama (and other Democratic leaders) often repeat the platitude that Islam is a “religion of peace.” ^xxxv They therefore place its adherents into positions of influence within the Obama administration, ^xxxviincluding even those from the Muslim Brotherhood, ^xxxvii which is recognized as the radical wing of Islam that fuels many of its most violent adherents. ^xxxviii
President Jefferson did not believe that Islam was a religion of peace. He personally learned this from the mouth of its own leaders, and from Islam’s own writings. In 1786 (two years after Congress dispatched him to negotiate with leaders of the terrorists), he and John Adams approached the Muslim Ambassador, inquiring as to the reason behind the unprovoked attacks against America. According to Jefferson:

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. ^xxxix

So why were the Islamicists so fixated on attacking Americans even though America had done nothing against them?

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet [Mohammed], that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. ^xl

It was Muslim leaders who told Jefferson that Islam was not intrinsically a religion of peace. Certainly, not all of its adherents were as warlike as the religion itself had historically tended to be (after all, there had been individual Muslims living in America since 1619 ^xli ), but wherever Islam was dominant in a nation or a region, lasting peace seldom accompanied it. As the Ambassador affirmed, war was the one sure guarantee of spiritual salvation for Muslims, so they had a compelling spiritual motivation to engage in perpetual violence.

One way for Americans in Jefferson’s day (and today also) to determine for themselves whether the Ambassador’s claim was true was by reading the Quran for themselves, so the first American edition of the Quran was published during the Jefferson administration. ^xlii The editor’s preface promised that once Americans had read it for themselves, “Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the better part of the world and wilt avouch that the knowledge of what is contained in this book [the Koran] will render that [Islamic] law contemptible.” ^xliii

Jefferson believed what Islamicists said about their religion and acted accordingly. Obama dismisses the same claims as mere hyperbole and tries to explain why Islamicists do not really mean what they say and why we should ignore what they do.

ⁱOriginally listed at Democratic National Committee, “Brief History of the Democratic Party” (at http://www.democrats.org/about/history.html). That page has now been pulled from the national Democrat website but has been preserved in published books showing that webpage. See, for example, David Barton, Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White (Aledo: WallBuilders Press, 2004), p. 14.

ⁱⁱSee, for example, “Connecticut Dems strip Jefferson, Jackson names from fundraising dinner,” FoxNews, July 23, 2015, and many others

ⁱⁱⁱSee, for example, “Connecticut Dems remove Thomas Jefferson from dinner name over slavery,” The Hill, July 23, 2015, and many others.

^ivSee David Barton, The Jefferson Lies (WND Books, 2016), pp. 119-120.

^vSee The Jefferson Lies, pp. 119-150.

^viSee, for example, John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on The Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50; The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, editor (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Vol. 3, p. 124, “Third Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Jonesboro, Illinois,” September 15, 1858 (quoting a Congressional resolution); Abraham Lincoln, “Special Session Message,” The American Presidency Project, July 4, 1861; Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, John G. Nicolay & John Hay, editors (New York: The Century Co., 1894), Vol. 1, pp. 532-533, to H. L. Pierce and Others, April 6, 1859; Vol. 1, pp. 608-609, “Address at Cooper Institute,” February 27, 1860.

^viiSteve Forbes, “Obama Has No Heart For the War on Terrorism,” Forbes, January 21, 2015.

^viiiKimberly Amadeo, “War on Terror: Facts, Costs, Timeline,” aboutnews, November 23, 2015.

^ixIn 1795, entering the final year of George Washington’s presidency, the total had reached sixteen percent of the federal budget (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Historical Statistics of the United States” (New York: Kraus International Publications, 1989), Part 2, p. 1104). It had climbed to twenty percent by the time Jefferson took office six years later (“First Barbary War,” Wikipedia (accessed on January 15, 2016)).

^xThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. V, p. 195, to William Carmichael on November 4, 1785. See also Garner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1905) p. 28.

^xiThose five nations were Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, Turkey, and Tripoli – North African and Mediterranean nations. Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, Claude A. Swanson, editor (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. 1, pp. 1-6, to Thomas Jefferson from Richard O’Brien, June 8, 1786. See also, A General View of the Rise, Progress, and Brilliant Achievements of the American Navy Down to the Present Time, (Brooklyn, 1828) pp. 70-71; “Barbary Pirates,” The Encyclopedia Britannica, Hugh Chisholm, editor (New York: The Encyclopedia Britannica Company, 1910), p. 383.

^xiiGeorge Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Russell, Odiorne, and Metcalf, 1835), Vol. IX, p. 194, to Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1786.

^xiiiJ. Fenimore Cooper, The History of the Navy of the United States of America (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1847), pp. 123-124. See alsoA Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1897, James D. Richardson, editor (Washington, D. C.: Published by Authority of Congress, 1897), Vol. I, p. 193, from Washington’s “Eighth Annual Address,” December 7, 1796.

^xivDictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (1968), Vol. III, pp. 521-523, “John Adams,” Hazegrey.org, (accessed on January 15, 2016).

^xvDictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (1968), Vol. III, pp. 521-523, “John Adams,” Hazegrey.org, (accessed on January 15, 2016).

^xviThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. V, p. 327, to Colonel Monroe, May 10, 1786.

^xviiThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. I, p. 97, from Jefferson’s Autobiography.

^xviiiThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, H.A. Washington, editor (Washington, D. C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), Vol. VII, p. 624, “Opinion Relative to Granting of Passports to American Vessels,” May 3, 1793.

^xixThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. V, p. 364, to John Adams, July 11, 1786.

^xxThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. VII, p. 224, to General Washington, December 4, 1788.

^xxiThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. V, p. 365, to John Adams, July 11, 1786.

^xxiiSee, for example, “The First Barbary War,” Monticello (accessed on January 15, 2016); “The Barbary Wars, 1801-1805,” The Mariners’ Museum, 2000; Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton; Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army, Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces That Marched from Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli; Principally Collected from His Correspondence and Other Manuscripts (Brookfield: E. Merriam & Co., 1813).

^xxiiiYale Law School, “Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli June 4, 1805,” The Avalon Project.

^xxivThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, H. A. Washington, editor (Washington, D. C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), Vol. VIII, p. 17, “Second Annual Message,” December 15, 1802.

^xxvThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, H. A. Washington, editor (Washington, D. C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), Vol. VIII, p. 8, “First Annual Message,” December 8, 1801.

^xxviThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, H. A. Washington, editor (Washington, D. C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), Vol. VIII, p. 8, “First Annual Message,” December 8, 1801.

^xxviiSee, for example, Charles Krauthammer, “Defy America, Pay No Price,” National Review, January 7, 2016.

^xxviiiMelanie Batley, “Intel Chief Agrees With GOP: Iran ‘Foremost Sponsor’ of Terrorism,” Newsmax, June 12, 2015.

^xxixMario Loyola, “NYT: How Obama Contributed to the Rise of ISIS,” National Review, August 12, 2014.

^xxxNick Wing & Carina Kolony, “15 Shocking Numbers That Will Make You Pay Attention To What ISIS Is Doing in Iraq,” Huffington Post, December 14, 2015; Abdelhalk Mamoun, “30,000-50,000 number of ISIS elements in Mosul,” Iraqi News, January 7, 2015; Samuel Smith, “UN Report on ISIS: 24,000 Killed, Injured by Islamic State; Children Used as Soldiers, Woman Sold as Sex Slaves,” The Christian Post, January 15, 2016.

^xxxi“Israel is the only country ISIS fears,” IBC World News, January 4, 2016.

^xxxiiSee, for example, Lev Selmon, “Islamic State vows to reach ‘Palestine’ and ‘kill the barbaric Jews’,” The Jerusalem Post, August 30, 2015 (at: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Islamic-State-vows-to-reach-Palestine-and-kill-the-barbaric-Jews-372796); Mary Chastain, “Islamic State to Join Palestine to Fight the ‘Barbaric Jews’,” Breitbart, August 1, 2014 (at: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/08/01/islamic-state-to-join-palestine-to-fight-the-barbaric-jews/); “ISIS directly threatens Jews as Israel remains vigilant and watchful of the terrorist threat at its borders,” United With Israel, January 4, 2015 (at: http://unitedwithisrael.org/isis-tweets-death-to-jews/); and so forth.

^xxxiiiDavid K. Li, “Egypt attacks ISIS hours after release of beheading video,” New York Post, February 16, 2015.

^xxxivThomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, H. A. Washington, editor (New York: H. W. Derby, 1861), Vol. VIII, p. 40, “Second Inaugural Address,” March 4, 1805.

^xxxvChris Perez, “Obama Defends the ‘True Peaceful Nature of Islam’,” New York Post, February 18, 2015.

^xxxvi“Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration,” Investor’s Business Daily, December 5, 2013; Anthony Martin, “Report – Obama Quietly Appoints Muslim Brotherhood to Key Posts,” Examiner, February 15, 2011.

^xxxvii“U.K. Condemns Muslim Brotherhood, While White House Hosts It,” Investor’s Business Daily, December 29, 2015; Bob Unruh, “General: Muslim Brotherhood Inside Obama Administration,” World Net Daily, January 9, 2014.

^xxxviiiTodd Beamon, “UK Declares Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Group, Breaks With Obama,” Newsmax, December 22, 2015; “FBI Chief: Muslim Brotherhood Supports Terrorism,” IPT News, February 11, 2011.

^xxxixThomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton University Press, 1954), Vol. 9, p. 357, letter from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, American Commissioners, to John Jay on March 28, 1786.

^xlThomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton University Press, 1954), Vol. 9, p. 357, letter from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, American Commissioners, to John Jay on March 28, 1786.

^xliIt is reported that Muslims were among the first slaves arriving in America, and that up to ten percent of slaves were Muslim. Thomas A. Tweed, “Islam in America: From African Slaves to Malcolm X,” National Humanities Center (Accessed on January 15, 2016).

^xliiThe Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mahomet. Translated from the Original Arabick into French, By the Sieur De Ryer, Lord of Malezair, and Resident of the French at Alexandria. The Whole Now Faithfully Translated Into English (Springfield: Henry Brewer, 1806).

^xliiiThe Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mahomet. Translated from the Original Arabick into French, By the Sieur De Ryer, Lord of Malezair, and Resident of the French at Alexandria. The Whole Now Faithfully Translated Into English (Springfield: Henry Brewer, 1806), p. iv, “To the Reader.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/obama-vs-jefferson-on-islamic-terror/#fYzwOeApXMtTx84z.99

http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/obama-vs-jefferson-on-islamic-terror/

19th Amendment

First lady voters depicted in Guthrie, OK, June 5, 1889. Women could vote in Guthrie from the beginning but lost the right when Oklahoma became a state. Oklahoma has a long history of being progressive. The second woman elected to US Congress was Alice Robertson from Muskogee. She served one term, 1921-23. Jeannette Rankin (of Montana) won election to Congress in 1916, four years before women even had the right to vote in all the states. The 19^th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

          There are purportedly a very large percentage of women voting for a woman in this election due to the fact that she is a woman, in order to cast a “historical” vote. Really… I would call it hysterical, certainly not historical. We aren’t voting for the president of the local bridge club ladies. Do you really think that is a wise choice of the right granted under the 19^th Amendment? How trite and superficial can one be?

          There are always arguments whether voting is a right, privilege, honor or otherwise. Text of the 19^th Amendment:

Amendment XIX. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Electoral College vs Popular Vote

This idea of election by popular vote was rejected not because the framers distrusted the people but rather because the larger populous States would have much greater influence than the smaller States and therefore the interests of those smaller States could be disregarded or trampled. Additionally, a nationwide election would encourage regionalism since the more populous areas of the country could form coalitions to elect president after president from their own region. With such regional preferentialism, lasting national unity would be nearly impossible.

Why Was The Electoral College Method Chosen?

The Electoral College synthesized two important philosophies established in the Constitution: (1) the maintenance of a republican, as opposed to a democratic, form of government and (2) the balancing of power between the smaller and the larger States and between the various diverse regions of the nation

When establishing our federal government, smaller States like Rhode Island had feared they would have no voice, and therefore no protection, against the more populous States like New York or Massachusetts. Similarly, the sparsely populated agricultural regions feared an inability to protect their interests against the fishing and shipping industries dominant in the more populous coastal States. These concerns on how to preserve individual State voices and diverse regional interests caused the framers to establish a bi-cameral rather than a uni-cameral legislative system.

In that wise plan, one body preserved the will of the majority as determined by population and the other preserved the will of the majority as determined by the States. As Constitution signer James Madison confirmed:

The Constitution is nicely balanced with the federative and popular principles; the Senate are the guardians of the former, and the House of Representatives of the latter; and any attempts to destroy this balance, under whatever specious names or pretenses they may be presented, should be watched with a jealous eye.

Consequently, in the Senate, Delaware has the same power as California with each State having two votes; but in the House, Delaware’s single vote often is completely negated by the fifty-two from California. Because of this different source of strength in each body, the votes in those two bodies on the same piece of legislation may be dramatically different. In such a case, before that legislation may become law there must be some compromise — some yielding of the Senate to the will of the population and some yielding of the House to the will of the States. As James Madison explained, the Electoral College wisely synthesized both of these important interests:

As to the eventual voting by States, it has my approbation. The lesser States and some larger States will be generally pleased by that mode. The deputies from the small States argued, and there is some force in their reasoning, that, when the people voted, the large States evidently had the advantage over the rest, and, without varying the mode, the interests of the little States might be neglected or sacrificed. Here is a compromise.

James Hillhouse (a soldier during the American Revolution and a U. S. Representative and Senator under Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison) also affirmed this principle, explaining:

The principle of the Constitution, of election by electors, is certainly preferable to all others. . . . [because] Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York, may combine; they may say to the other [smaller] States, we will not vote for your man. . . . [or] the agricultural will be arrayed against the mercantile; the South against the East; the seaboard against the inland.

Consequently, under the Electoral College system, the smaller States receive a slightly greater voice, proportionally speaking. For example, California is the largest State and its 33 million inhabitants have 54 electors, each of whom represents 614,000 inhabitants. However, Wyoming is the smallest State and its less than one-half million inhabitants are represented by only 3 electors — one for every 160,000 inhabitants. This therefore gives Wyoming slightly more proportional strength. As Uriah Tracy (a Major-General during the Revolution and a U. S. Representative and Senator under Presidents George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson) observed during debates on the Electoral College:

He [the president] is to be chosen by electors appointed as the State legislatures shall direct, not according to numbers entirely, but adding two electors in each State as representatives of State sovereignty. Thus, Delaware obtains three votes for president, whereas she could have but one in right of numbers [population].

So, on the one hand, the electoral college tends somewhat to overrepresent voters in smaller States; and no matter how small a State is, it is guaranteed at least 3 electors because, as explained by James Bayard (a U. S. Representative and U. S. Senator under Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison), the electoral college supplied a “means of self-protection” to “a small State without resources.”  In fact, the combined number of electors in the eight smallest States (Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, and Rhode Island) produce the same number of electors as the single State of Florida even though Florida has a population more than three times greater than those eight smaller States combined.

Yet, on the other hand, if a candidate wins California and its 54 electoral votes, then that candidate is one-fifth of the way to the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the presidency. Thus, while California accounts for only 11 percent of the nation’s population it can provide 20 percent of the electoral votes needed to obtain the presidency. The Electoral College system therefore preserves a sound balance between population centers and between diverse State and regional interests, incorporating elements both of popular and of State representation in its operation.

John Taylor (an officer during the American Revolution and a U. S. Senator under Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) observed:

Two principles sustain our Constitution: one a majority of the people, the other a majority of the States; the first was necessary to preserve the liberty or sovereignty of the people; the last, to preserve the liberty or sovereignty of the States. But both are founded in the principle of majority; and the effort of the Constitution is to preserve this principle in relation both to the people and the States, so that neither species of sovereignty or independence should be able to destroy the other.

James Madison agreed, affirming:

In our complex system of polity, the public will, as a source of authority, may be the will of the people as composing one nation, or the will of the States in their distinct and independent capacities; or the federal will as viewed, for example, through the presidential electors, representing in a certain proportion both the nation and the States.

This blending of the will of the population and the will of the States is why it is possible — and has thrice occurred — that a President may win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote (on those previous occasions, the margin of victory in the popular vote was less than 1 percent). Usually, however, the Electoral College tends to exaggerate the margin of victory of the popular vote rather than run counter to it.

The Benefits of the Electoral College System

There are three important benefits produced by the current Electoral College system:

(1) Because a candidate must win at least 270 electoral votes from across the nation, a candidate cannot become president without a significant widespread voter base. In fact, as has happened in three previous elections, the distribution of voter support may actually take precedence over the quantity of voter support. Therefore, the Electoral College ensures a broad national consensus for a candidate that subsequently will allow him to govern once he takes office.

(2) Since the electoral college operates on a State-by-State basis, this not only enhances the status of minorities by affording them a greater proportional influence within a smaller block of voters at the State level but it also ensures a geographically diverse population which makes regional domination, or domination of urban over suburban or rural areas, virtually impossible. In fact, since no one region of the country has 270 electoral votes, there is an incentive for a candidate to form coalitions of States and regions rather than to accentuate regional differences.

(3) The Electoral College system prioritizes the most important factors in selecting a president. If a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is almost certain to receive enough electoral votes to be president. However, if the popular vote is extremely close, then the candidate with the best distribution of popular votes will be elected. And if the country is so divided that no one candidate obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the U. S. House of Representatives — the body closest to the people and which must face them in every election — will then choose the president.

NOTE: There are many groups, such as that hare-brained bunch of mindless nymphs called the League of Women Voters who want the Electoral College abolished in favor of the Popular Vote. In addition, there are mindless blowhard individuals who bloviate on that which his/ her tiny mind is incapable of understanding.

The audacity of the groups and individuals is exceeded only by their arrogance. They actually compare their intellect, understanding and wisdom to that of our Founding Fathers. That comparison in itself is sufficient to have them declared certifiably insane.

Read and try to understand the above and then tell me you would like to join the League of Women Voters. I will provide them with a letter of recommendation for you, along with a nice little calico smock for your induction.

Commerce Clause

Commerce Clause

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3

“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

“And” is the key word here because it tells us the power to regulate foreign commerce is the exact same as the power to regulate interstate commerce. That’s critical because it means that any type of commerce that Congress can regulate domestically among the states also has to be something it could regulate with a foreign country.

What’s cool about that is it makes it very easy for you to figure out what Congress has the authority to regulate when it comes to commerce “among the several states.”

For Congress to have the power to regulate something in interstate commerce, that regulation would have to make sense in this sentence:

“Congress has the power to regulate ______________ with foreign nations.”

Anything that doesn’t fit logically into that sentence would be unconstitutional for Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Lopez (1995)

Try this one for instance, with respect to the Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare:

Congress has the power to regulate healthcare with foreign nations.

Ya think?

How about with respect to the Minimum Wage:

“Congress has the power to regulate minimum wages with foreign nations.”

Once again, it just ain’t workin’ for me.

Minimum Wage

It’s funny because I have seen that Congress has voted against an increase in the Minimum Wage 15 times in the past 2 years. I had to go look again at Article 1, Section 8 to see if I could find where we had passed a Constitutional Amendment on the matter whilst I slept… We had not. So, I read again Article 1, Section 8, the express powers of Congress. Could not find one clause where Minimum Wage would fall under those powers. So I remembered to look at the Commerce Clause again, the Clause Liberal adherents to Constitutional Case Law love to throw everything into so FED GOV can usurp the States and the People.

How about following the same sense of the Commerce Clause with respect to the Minimum Wage:

“Congress has the power to regulate minimum wages with foreign nations.”

Once again, it just ain’t workin’ for me.

My personal favorite though is utilizing the Commerce Clause to determine Congressional jurisdiction over transgender bathrooms. Here we go again…

How about with respect to the Transgender Bathrooms:

“Congress has the power to regulate where to pee with foreign nations.”

That one just fell flat with me, kinda’ like a snake run over by a steam roller.

I know that some of you Alice in Wonderland liberals just hate that all of the above are not in Article 1, Section 8. Truth be known, there are some women most of us men would love to follow anywhere, including the Ladies Bathroom. Add to that the assertion that nothing is forever, including the US Constitution. They would be correct. The Founding Fathers, keeping that in mind, provided 2 methods to amend the Constitution. So, go ahead, amend it so we can all pee pee together; after all, the family that pee pees together, sticks together. You cannot however, skirt the Constitution, as amended; just because it makes you wee wee in your diaper.

Wah wah wah wah wah…

General Welfare Clause

          “If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads.  In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, 1792 Cod Fishing Debate.

          The first clause in Article 1 Section 8 is known as the General Welfare Clause. According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money but only to carry out the powers as enumerated in the following clauses of Article 1, not to meet the seemingly endless needs of the general welfare. That is a power reserved to the States in the 10^th Amendment.

          It seems that Madison was prescient; knowing a bunch of idiots would think they deserved a bunch of free stuff and a MORON that would give it to them.

Further discussion: 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

          See Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention: http://consource.org/document/james-madisons-notes-of-the-constitutional-convention-1787-9-17/

          These include the daily Notes from May 25, 1787 through September 17, in total. Also are Records of the Proceedings by the various delegates.

Summary of the balance of Sect 8:

Borrow money

Regulate Commerce

Establish a Rule of Naturalization

Establish a Uniform Rule on Bankruptcies

To Coin money & regulate the value

Fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Provide the punishment for counterfeiting

Establish Post Offices and Post Roads

Provide for Copywriting

Establish Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court

Define and punish piracies on the high seas

Declare War

Raise and support Armies for 2 year intervals

Provide and maintain a Navy

Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

Exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over the District [of Columbia] and exercise authority over all federal military installations

Make all Laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing

Each of the foregoing would be categorized under the aegis of the 3 Powers:

Provide for the Common Defense

Insure Domestic Tranquility

Promote the General Welfare

As follows:

Provide for the Common Defense—

Establish Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court

Define and punish piracies on the high seas

Declare War

Raise and support Armies for 2 year intervals

Provide and maintain a Navy

Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

Insure Domestic Tranquility—

Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

Exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over the District [of Columbia] and exercise authority over all federal military installations

Promote the General Welfare—

Borrow money

Regulate Commerce--See Commerce Clause

Establish a Rule of Naturalization

Establish a Uniform Rule on Bankruptcies

To Coin money & regulate the value

Fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Provide the punishment for counterfeiting

Establish Post Offices and Post Roads

Provide for Copywriting

All else is reserved to the States and to the People

Transformation of Downtown Seminole

          There is a transformation of what was the Seminole of old, from Tidmore, Oklahoma Indian Territory, to one of the biggest Boom Towns in the history of these United States, Seminole, Oklahoma. Keep your eyes open and you will be filled with pride. Walk into Kalico Kitchen. That was once the entrance of Matthews Grocery, co-owned by Winford Fizer Matthews, Sr. and James Newton Harber. First Nat’l Bank was owned by Harber—his In-Law was my grandfather. The exit was at about the old Hammons Men’s Wear front, also life-long friends of grandpa. J.N. Harber bailed. Grandpa bought him out, both transplants from Izard Co., AR, parent County of Baxter County, of Grisso fame. Of the families that started this experiment, there were the families of Chase, Harber, Matthews, Seay, Noe, etc.  They began this town, along with the Matthews family, their In-Laws, all of which married the daughters and granddaughters of Robert Calvin Matthews, my G-G-Grandfather.

          An entity is preserving all of this. The Grisso, Worth, Pat’s Café, Corral Room, Hideaway Bar, along with my Grandfather’s second store, now Seminole Discount Store, has been renovated. Underway is the American Legion Hut, now being brought back to its original integrity. The gas station at “Crazy Corner” is underway, providing a Full Service gas station and relevant products. If you frequent these locations, you will be a part of our history. The Crazy Corner is one of the original borders of the original Seminole, now being bordered by “South of the Tracks”.

          The old American Legion Hut is no exception. It has been brought back to its original integrity. On Saturday was a birthday party. There will be another, this coming Saturday and the next. The 1967 50 year Reunion may have an event there this September.  Excitement is back if you will.

          If you go to Bumpy Brick, you will feel the original spirit of our predecessors. I promise that. Pat’s was a local haunt. The Worth Hotel had an altogether different market niche’. We danced in the basement of the Grisso at the Corral Room. The Hideaway Bar was unknown to almost all of us. If you venture there, you will sense the history, you will feel it. You will become a part of that history.

          The very beginning of the history is at hand. I knew all of these originals. Go shake their hands, spend time at their haunts, tell them thank you and especially thank those who are bringing you back to them—they will smile upon you. If you venture into Seminole Discount Liquor, envision my grandfather at the counter, butchering his own meats, a pickle barrel, a cracker barrel and local products from local farmers in audience. His smile would make you smile. I sure do miss him and I sure do miss that time in Seminole, the “Miracle City”.

Nailed by Foul Ball Whilst Skating

          I read a Facebook post this morning that spurred great concern for our little tykes and tots. A siren call for a net over our skate park or batter’s box was intimated to protect our little progenies, due to the fact that the little love monkeys are being pummeled by foul balls, administrated by evil ballplayers at bat. Who could possibly deny them this protection? I recall, as a tyke, in days of yore, that we would station ourselves behind the fence strategically so we could catch foul balls, bare-handed of course. Knuckle-draggers we were—dread the thought. This would be money well spent, assuming we could at least fill the crater on Strothers at David Boren Boulevard first.

          Who in their right mind would want to skate without a net!? I play tennis, with my Tennis Tutor of course, just across the street from said skate park. I think we should broaden the net to include the tennis courts, waterpark, etc. We could even be forward thinking sufficiently to include the old rodeo grounds, just in case we might attract a rodeo or maybe some giant retailer in the near future. Lest we forget our champion swimmers and golfers too! It would be really special if we made the net from Kevlar, which might also protect some innocent from a meteorite. What are the odds…

          I must admit, it would be a form of family embarrassment to have to post on the tombstone of your firstborn male child, “Here lies l’il Jeffrey, nailed by a foul ball whilst skating.” Dread the thought.

Just think, Seminole could become the global model for safe spaces interspersed in various places around town. Downtown, we need safe spaces surrounded by fireproof lining, in addition to the overhead nets, due to the mysterious spontaneous combustion events that appear out of nowhere from time to time. Who’s on first? OMG!!!

State and Local Funding for Education

I watched an interview this morning of Governor LePage, Maine. He was lamenting the fact that "only 59% of state educational funding gets to the student, 6 points less than the national average of 65%." Another group says it is about 60% on average, although each jurisdiction has a little bit different definition of actual per student funding. He also pointed out something remarkable: "while per-pupil spending has risen by about 27 percent over the past decade, the number of students in Maine schools has dropped by about 11 percent to less than 180,000." Sound familiar? It should to Oklahomans and especially Oklahomans in Seminole. Actually Governor LePage is doing quite well. In Oklahoma, only 56% of the money makes it to the classroom. Texas, on our southern border has theirs at 61%. The most egregious and glaring fact in Oklahoma is not that however. When I was in SPS, 66% of funding for SPS was local, less than one-third was state and federal funding was statistically insignificant. That has flip-flopped; local funding for SPS is about 30%. Those who lament the fact that we have lost local control forget that we gave up local control for education when we gave up funding "local" education, locally. BTW—the percentage decrease in the number of students at SHS was about the same as the State of Maine, 10%, give or take, over the same period. Problem defined; work on it.

Really?!

As we wander again, aimlessly, trying as we might to make certain that every US citizen has healthcare and health insurance, two very distinctly different subjects, we should be reminded again, why that is just not possible. When the framers were setting up this system of government, they chose very few federal prerogatives knowing that a central government cannot fix a one size fits all framework outside of that small list in Art 1 Section 8. It just cannot be done. It could not be accomplished even for 13 very distinctly different Colonies and it will never be done with 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Colony of New York and the Colony of Rhode Island were not even remotely alike, then or now. Today, the former Colonies, and now States, of Maryland and Virginia are so different they might as well be on different planets. I lived in Virginia for a quarter century and I KNOW this to be true.

          I have been to the remotest stretches of NW China and I have been to Mexico City. If you wander outside of the Zona Rosa in Mexico City, or visit that region of China, you too would remark that no one in the US of A lives in poverty. Period! That is a fact, not fake news.

          This problem exists in each and every form of government known to man. They have all tried to fix it and all have failed; socialism, communism, capitalism, democracy et al. If you try to design a fix by instituting a totalitarian regime, headed by a benevolent dictator, you will fail. Giving that kind of power to a “king” is destined to fail. The framers were well acquainted with such totalitarian regimes and they came up with our form of government to avoid that and avoid the possibility of that in our Constitution. Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolute power in the hands of a despot is merely a weapon.

          “But, you say, we all have a right to healthcare and even health insurance.” Or, “But some will not have healthcare or health insurance if we don’t fix it”. Where in God’s name did you come up with that nonsensical idea? Here is a concept for you. In the good ole USA, we are all born with an equal opportunity to succeed. Some do, some do not, no matter your form of centralized government. In every system of government, the cream rises to the top and the failed sleep in a shanty, or under a bridge.

          Guess what, we do not all have a car—5% of the driving age population do not have a car. Many of those cannot even afford a bus ticket. Go figure. Guess what else; 14% of those who do have an automobile do not have auto insurance. The vast majority of us do not have a home in Palm Springs, or even closer to home, in Nichols Hills. Guess what else; 4% of us never make it until our 25^th birthday, almost 1% of us reside in prison, 10% of us do not have a cell phone. Sad but true.

          A campaign slogan of former president, Harry S. Truman, was “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage”. That was almost 70 years ago. Nice slogan but we are nowhere near that even now and it just won’t happen anytime soon.

          Is any of the above really a role of the federal government? More importantly, is any of the above something any centralized government can fix? Think about that and think about that statement of any of this being a RIGHT, whether our Constitution, the Magna Carta or anything else, including the Bible.

          Whatever Congress and the President decide about a law instituting healthcare/ insurance will again head to the Supreme Court [SCOTUS], bet large on that. The makeup of this Court will be quite different than the last charade that ruled on the ACA. It is my understanding that the latest nominee is a Constitutional Originalist. I guess we are “fixin’ to find out”. If he is a said Originalist, whatever the role of Fed Gov remains at the federal level is in jeopardy, other than a pass through to the States, where it belongs.

          The role of SCOTUS is not to make a value judgement, as did the previous Court. The role of the Court is to determine the Constitutionality of a law and the Statutes pursuant thereto. They are to look at whether Art 1 Section 8, and laws pursuant, includes a federal role in healthcare, period. It does not, simply stated. Read it yourself and tell me the Fed Gov even has a dog in that hunt. But, you say, “We all have a RIGHT…”

          While we all here are born with the same equal opportunity, we all don’t end up with equal results. Ah yes, those prickly laws of nature… Where you end up is what you earn, not what the government provides. If your self-worth and self-reliance takes you to a lofty life style, I say well deserved. If it is however, based upon what you get from the government, you are simply a ward of the state and that just ain’t very lofty. If you have an iPhone and a BMW and live in mommy’s basement and daddy paid for it all, you didn’t earn it, mommy and daddy did. Your self-actualization is determined by yourself, individually, by what you earn; not that of mommy and daddy, not Fed Gov. YOU!

          For those of you who say that healthcare/ insurance should be a federal prerogative, there are two ways to amend the Constitution to get that done. The framers provided those mechanisms and that is why it is a “Living Document”; it can be expanded in time if it is determined a sufficient enough priority to include. It only takes ¾ of the States to agree to an amendment. Good luck Chuck! Please note that I said STATES—we are a Republic, not a free for all democracy as some would wish. Otherwise, it is just another Letter to Santa Wish List. It is not the role of the Fed Gov to make sure we all have a car, iPhone, live to collect Social Security, a home in Palm Springs or even healthcare/ insurance, dread the thought. “If wishes were fishes…” Where/ when did we come up with thinking we deserve all of this crap or that it is a RIGHT? Ultimately, you will get what you paid for and you will get paid for what you earn. THAT is a veritable right.