No consequences for political misdeeds

Historians may take a considerable amount of time in granting a designation to a particular period of time, a nomenclature such as “The Victorian Era,” or “The Enlightenment.”

That lag may be considerably shortened regarding the current era. Indeed, the phrase can easily be gleaned when even casually examining the contemporary environment. We are living in the “Era of No Consequences.”

In December , the second Stimulus Bill was again debated, months after it was due. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has essentially stated that she held up the measure, which is supposed to provide badly needed funding for people and small businesses devastated by the ongoing pandemic, because she didn’t want it to pass until after the election, an act of partisanship that placed politics above the good of the nation. A friendly media has not attacked her for this, nor has she suffered any other penalty.

During 2020, much of the world has been devastated as a result of COVID-19, spread through China’s negligence or maliciousness. There has been little discussion of reprisals in response to this.

During the U.S. Presidential election, balloting wrongdoings occurred. The courts have been unwilling to even examine the problem in detail. The beneficiary of those untoward acts, Joe Biden, has been further sullied by his family’s enrichment by Beijing, America’s chief adversary. It appears that he will endure no detriment from that.

For almost the entire length of the Trump presidency, the nation was torn asunder and an impeachment took place, all based on false charges knowingly brough forth by unscrupulous individuals. A wholly false “dossier” accused Trump of conspiring with Russians. Lies and omissions were given to the FISA Court. The nation was plunged into several years of an expensive and divisive investigation on the wholly groundless charges. Figures such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.) swore to the nation that they had evidence which, it turned out, never existed. No one has ever been punished for the lies, perjury, and other misdeeds related to this. Again, no judicial reprisal was taken.

generic viagra cheapest Donor selection Donors are chosen if the semen specimen contain at least 20 to 30 minutes in advance to get the penile become harder. This fungus is gaining quick popularity cipla generic viagra because of its renal toxicity. Not being able to enjoy one’s sexual life to generic cheap cialis a great extent. Things including having cialis price a drink or being nervous can lead to situational Erectile Dysfunction.

During that same period of time, riots on a scale not seen for half a century took place. Not only have the perpetrators not been punished, but a sympathetic media portrayed the burning, looting, and assaults as “peaceful protests.”

On state-funded campuses across the nation, oppression of non-leftist students takes place. Despite this misappropriation of taxpayer dollars, no plan exists to remedy the problem.

This particular epoch began with the election of Barack Obama. His presidency saw the machinery of the federal government diverted to partisan political endeavors. Groups opposing his views were hit hard and unlawfully by the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice. Beginning in March 2010, not-for-profit groups that disagreed with the Obama White House were placed on special lists for political reprisal. Once these discriminatory and illegal acts were exposed, precisely nothing of consequence happened. Eventually, some officials were allowed to resign and there was a financial settlement. But the ultimate government officials who should have borne responsibility paid no political price.

During this same time period, Hillary Clinton committed a panoply of apparent crimes and engaged in astounding coverups. She openly lied about the origins of the attack on the American facility in Benghazi. She approved the sale of the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons to the Russians. When questions were asked about her activities, she destroyed the evidence. These misdeeds did nothing to harm her career. Indeed, she secured the Democratic nomination for President in 2016.

When wrongdoing by people of influence and power are not punished, society is deeply diminished and endangered. This is the true legacy of the “Era of No Consequences.”

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/