Politicians and Pundits vs. The People

Several key elected officials have performed terribly in office, but the media has failed to react to their fiascos.

There is a distinct difference between the worldview held by politicians and most pundits, and that of the average citizen. The inability of the former to recognize the wisdom of the latter is seriously harming the nation.

Politicians and many of those who make a living out of writing or broadcasting about them focus on career issues, party politics, or furthering an ideological perspective. To some extent, that blinds them to the actual performance of the individuals in question. That has never been more clear than in the rapid decline of key American cities over the past several years.

The nation’s metropolises, particularly those administered by leftist and progressive mayors, have been besieged by nearly unprecedented disorder and maladministration in recent years. From coast to coast, mobs have burned, looted and assaulted innocents. Rather than staunch the bleeding, mayors whose loyalty lies not with their citizenry or the law have stood by, too frightened of being accused of offending the supporters of groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter to do their job adequately.

In Portland, rioters have attacked a government office building as well as a federal courthouse. In Seattle, an entire portion of the city was completely taken over by leftist mobs. In New York City, the most famed shopping districts were looted. The massive increases in shootings and other crimes have brought the Big Apple to its knees. In Chicago, the body count of murders resembles that of a small war.

It would be reasonable to assume that the elected officials at any level, and particularly those in the affected cities would move forcefully to both counteract the onslaught on their own, and accept any assistance they could obtain from Washington.

This slovak-republic.org buy cheap levitra is not in the case of VigRX the users have noticed quick results i. Circumstance which may interfere your sleep are different from viagra cipla india night work to night parties. Some medicines such as SSRIs, anti-androgens, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors, opioid analgesics have been found perilous for men’s sexual canadian sildenafil ability. Find the best vodafone offers with Top seller smartphone – iphone 4s deals Versatile SMS is picking up ubiquity each passing day. purchase female viagra

Stunningly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called federal law enforcement agents “Stormtroopers” when they attempted to defend federal facilities from the rioters.

Chicago’s’ Mayor Lightfoot has criticized her own citizens who seek to defend themselves from criminals, and has opposed Washington’s assistance. Seattle’s mayor failed for a prolong period to clear the invaders away from the district they occupied. Portland’s mayor is sympathetic towards Antifa. It is clear that New York’s mayor considers appeasing radicals more important than insuring law and order.

Those who have the front-line duty of protecting the residents of these and other besieged cities have been attacked by their own local governments. Police chiefs in both Portland and Seattle have resigned in protest. Both are female, and one is also black; any claim that these law enforcement heads are somehow biased on race or gender is ludicrous. The New York City Police Force, almost universally recognized as the most fair, most professional and most accomplished in the world has, under the de Blasio Administration, become demoralized and hamstrung.

These Mayors, as well as Speaker Pelosi, have pushed aside the needs of the citizens and the local businesses that serve them. They have done so in the pursuit of their personal and party goals and loyalty, despite the massive harm it has caused.

One would assume that these acts of outright incompetence or malfeasance would be highlighted by a media that likes to consider itself a watchdog for the public good. But the reality is that most major outlets have abandoned their journalistic ethics and side with the leftist/progressive movement. The fact that the socialist goals invariably lead to disaster appears to be irrelevant to them. The terrible practice of creating racial animosity adopted by the left to divide and conquer America is swept under the rug those who care more for promoting their preferred candidates and ideology than serving the public or preserving the nation.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/