Slash and Burn Politics Combines with Irresponsible Journalism

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two part examination of the charges of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

The President’s military attack on the airbase of Russia’s ally Syria, in response to President Bashar al-Assad’s heinous use of illegal gas weapons against his own people, further diminishes allegations that Trump is friendly with Putin. The Russians had warned the White House against the move. The move is in sharp contrast to the Obama Administration’s reluctance to offend Putin’s Syrian ally.

The “Russian Connection” allegations against the Trump Administration need to be seen for what they truly are.

Even by the usual harsh standards of politics, the slash and burn tactics practiced by the losing side of the 2016 election have been excessive. The situation is deeply worsened by the complicity of a media that remains embarrassed that its open advocacy of Hillary Clinton was not only unethical but also unsuccessful. Combined with an academic establishment that seeks to censor non-leftist student speech, and the financing by rogue billionaires of street protests, its adds up to a (mostly) nonviolent attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

The normal governmental avenues are increasingly unavailable to the hard left. Voters have taken note of Progressives’ failed policies at home and abroad. Republicans now dominate the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and most governorships and state legislatures. Rather than do the soul-searching and preparation for the next campaign as the GOP did in the aftermath of the 2008 election, when it was Democrats that took total control of the federal government, the extremists who have taken over the Democrat Party are seeking to delegitimize the election results.

Since the Trump Administration is too new to actually have a record to criticize, allegations have been made about improper actions before the election, specifically, contacts with the Russian government.

No convincing evidence has yet to be presented, either of illegal contact, (despite the newly released information that the Obama Administration was indeed engaging in surveillance of the Trump campaign) or of any resulting impact in the campaign—that much is clear. But a larger question looms. Why would the Russian Government favor a Trump victory?

The Obama loyalist theory is this: in 2011, protesters marched in Moscow, claiming Putin had rigged his election. Clinton had criticized the election, angering Putin. This, the former President’s supporters maintain, motivated the Russian president to retaliate by moving against Clinton. Russia did hack DNC computers, so there was, at least, some smoke. But was there fire?

The idea assumes that Putin is as sensitive as a college student needing a safe space to hide from microaggressions. Was the ex-KGB official so hurt that he would place his entire government at risk by helping Trump? Would he overlook, because of Clinton comments, the enormous favors that Clinton and Obama did for Russia, which included:

Slashing spending on U.S. armed forces,
Selling 20% of U.S. uranium (the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons) to Moscow,
signing the New START treaty which, for the first time in history, gave Russia the lead in atomic weapons,
Doing virtually nothing other than impose weak sanctions in the wake of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine,
Roadblocking U.S. energy production from federal lands, thereby giving Russia’s chief export greater value,
Withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq and allowing Russia to become the main influence in the region.

He is a sex spehere are the findings cheap viagrat in Delhi who has satisfied customers from all over Delhi. David Bodanis said that the cure for autism lies in support and help from family and friends as everyone can help each other order viagra canada here are the findings in making life comfortable for an autistic child. These soft cheapest viagra no prescription versions are easy to consume. With regards to these 2 things (2 factors), generic levitra online http://raindogscine.com/?order=4047 one effectively promoted the other.
There also another problem: there is no evidence that, other than hacking computers, Putin actually did anything that in any way actually influenced even a single vote. The most the DNC can point to is that some Clinton quotes may have been leaked, although even that is open to question.

In contrast, during the campaign, Trump pushed concepts that were virtual daggers pointed at the heart of Moscow. The first was the undoing of the dramatic and dangerous cuts to the U.S. defense budget. The second was a promise to reinvigorate the U.S. energy sector, which could cause significant harm to the Russian economy. The third was a reversal of Obama’s intentional reduction of U.S. leadership across the globe.

Much was made of Trump’s attempt to get NATO countries to spend more, claiming that pleased Moscow because it opened up a wedge between Europe and the U.S. The assertion doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, in large part because several European nations now express a willingness to beef up their defenses. Having a greater defense against Russia’s increasingly powerful military is not exactly a result Putin would want.

The report concludes Monday

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/