Question:  Why was Claire McCaskill practically alone among democrats in tweeting out this yesterday

generating angry responses like this from leftists like this

and this

and this

and this

and this

forcing her to send out responses like this

and this

in the face of angry leftists?


McCaskill knows that unlike Kellogg’s which has to market to an entire nation and thus has to worry if said tweeters might (like me) no longer be buying their products hers is a niche market within the state of Missouri against a party that likely won’t be foolish enough to let Democrats pick their nominee.

She was one of the few swing state senators to survive her vote for Obamacare she’s going to do her best to survive once again and she does this by playing the long game:

According to the US census Missouri has a black population of 11.7%. It has a hispanic population of 3.4% Additionally while Democrats have been winning the Governor’s mansion since Missouri have held the governor’s mansion since 2009 both the House and Senate in the state have gone Republican since 2003.

In other words Missouri has been trending red and while the media has been giving a lot of latitude to protesters in Ferguson, riots by left leaning mobs and attacks on police are not likely to cause the state to turn any bluer anytime soon.

So seeing the lay of the land and understanding that the next senate election she is facing is in a midterms she had to quickly establish her independence from the two most unpopular Democrats in the nation, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

You might say: But DaTechGuy Barack Obama was very popular? My answer. Clever Claire McCaskill knows fake news when she sees it.

So she will rejoice in stories like this and posts like thisand highlight them to distance herself from the violent protests because regardless of the face she presents to the twitter world the radicals in her state who turned a thug like Michael Brown into a gentle giant know that the reality is she has their back.

Lucky for us most Democrats aren’t as smart as her.

Closing thought, If I was running the RNC or a conservative pac I’d encourage donors to quietly start financing a radical leftists, possibly a black nationalist to primary her and point to this event as a reason to do so. However I suspect with a Romney now calling the shots that thought will never come to mind.


2016 Fabulous 50 Blog AwardsIt’s 2017 and we have a new chance to make our annual goal which requires $61 a day.

[As of Jan 11th between subscribers and tip jar hitters we are at a 64.9% pace for 2017 $436 of $671 based on our daily goal]

If you’d like to help support our award winning independent non MSM journalism and opinion from writers all over the nation like Baldilocks, RH, Fausta, JD Rucker Christopher Harper, Pat Austin, and John Ruberry plus Monthly pieces from Jon Fournier, Tech Knight and Ellen Kolb and want to help pay their monthly wages (along with the cartoonist) and new writers I’m looking to hire) please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to go to CPAC and cover major events in person all over the country and maybe take some of Da Magnificent Seven writers with me.

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



As I write this post, I’m totally entranced with the TV coverage of the Trump inauguration.

My favorite so far is Varney & Co. on Fox Business Network (you can watch live at the link).

Mr. Varney was born in England and became a U.S. citizen, and peppers his commentary with notes on the stock market: He checked the price of GM stock when the motorcades headed to the Capitol building. He wondered if Tiffany stock would go up while Melania handed Michelle the signature Tiffany-blue box:

What is more entrancing is the crowd waiting outside. Thousands of Trump supporters wearing Make America Great Again hats peacefully gathering in an organized manner, which also makes me admire the massive security effort this occasion requires. In other parts of town, anarchists are breaking windows.

The importance of a peaceful and amicable transition from one administration to the next is part of what defines a true democracy. As the day enfolds, I invite you to pray for our great country and for the President. From the Book of Common Prayer:

Prayers for National Life

18. For our Country

Almighty God, who hast given us this good land for our heritage: We humbly beseech thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of thy favor and glad to do thy will. Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those to whom in thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that, through obedience to thy law, we may show forth thy praise among the nations of the earth. In the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in thee to fail; all which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

19. For the President of the United States and all in Civil Authority

O Lord our Governor, whose glory is in all the world: We commend this nation to thy merciful care, that, being guided by thy Providence, we may dwell secure in thy peace. Grant to the President of the United States, the Governor of this State (or Commonwealth), and to all in authority, wisdom and strength to know and to do thy will. Fill them with the love of truth and righteousness, and make them ever mindful
of their calling to serve this people in thy fear; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz posts on U.S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.


As I prepare to teach the history of journalism this semester, I’ve been thinking about whether reporters used to do a better job.

The notions of objectivity, fairness and balance are standards that occurred in the 1950s when leaders of the media sought a more favorable impression of journalists as professionals. The standards also aimed at a better business model by getting all sides to read a story. Many European journalists eschew such an approach, providing a set of facts and then arguing from a distinctly partisan point of view.

I like the European approach much better. That way I don’t have to parse the political leanings of a journalist who’s hiding behind the alleged standards of objectivity. I think journalists should admit their biases and their partisan beliefs. I like accuracy and transparency as better standards for good journalism.

For example, John Hersey’s “Hiroshima,” which chronicles the stories of six survivors of the atomic bomb, is generally considered the finest work in journalism during the 2oth century. The article and book are not balanced. The story describes the horror of what happened and how people lived and died in horrific conditions.

Paul Fussell, the late academic who might have been one of the estimated one million Allied casualties had the bomb not been used, offered a useful and not-so-objective look at the alternative in his 1981 essay in the New Republic, “Thank God for the Atom Bomb!”

In his excellent book, “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the Greatest Myths in American Journalism,” American University professor W. Joseph Campbell dispels a number of myths held strongly by reporters. For example, the evidence that Richard Nixon won the 1960 first debate with John Kennedy on radio and lost among television viewers has little basis in fact. The evidence simply does not exist.

Campbell argues successfully that Woodward and Bernstein did not bring down Nixon as a result of their Watergate reporting. The Washington Post’s efforts dovetailed with the work of Congress, the judicial system and other perhaps more important actors in the scandal.

I would add some other examples of getting it wrong. The Tet Offensive got widespread attention as an example of how the United States was losing the war in Vietnam. In fact, the Viet Cong suffered huge losses—a fact that did not get much play in the media.

Joe McCarthy may have used extreme tactics in his attack on Communism. But his underlying belief that Communists had infiltrated the U.S. government after World War II proved to be accurate once Soviet archives became available. Based on documents made available after the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. Library of Congress historian John Earl Haynes concluded that of the 159 people identified as subversives on lists cited by McCarthy, nine had almost definitely aided in Soviet espionage (and many others could be considered security risks for various reasons).

Nevertheless, I found some of the writing of leftists of bygone eras much more palatable than today’s screeds. For example, Martha Gellhorn’s account of the bombing of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War provides a great deal of insight into the “collateral damage” of that war.

Gellhorn, an avowed leftist, got it right in my view when she declared that objectivity was nonsense, particularly when she was reporting about the Nazi death camps.

Jimmy Breslin, another lefty writer, was able to talk with ordinary people—an ability lost by the current generation of reporters. “It’s An Honor” is Breslin’s account of the death and burial of Kennedy in which one of the key characters is the guy who dug the grave for the assassinated president. Here is the column: http://www.newsday.com/opinion/digging-jfk-grave-was-his-honor-jimmy-breslin-1.6481560

Richard Ben Cramer’s account of the 1988 election campaign, “What It Takes,” is a far more insightful analysis that anything we have seen since then, particularly his evisceration of Joe Biden, the plagiarist who became vice president. Cramer’s book is also far better than the acclaimed “Making of a President, 1960” by Theodore White about JFK’s campaign, which we now know had widow Jacqueline as the chief architect of the book’s meme.

You have to respect someone like the recently deceased Nat Hentoff, a lefty who also opposed abortion despite losing many friends and some writing gigs because of his pro-life stance.

All told, journalists did seem to be better once upon a time. At least my students and I will be able to delve into what once was to determine if we can use the lessons of the oldies but goodies to adapt to today’s environment.

Note for transparency purposes: W. Joseph Campbell is a friend. I knew Richard Ben Cramer.


Christopher Harper is a longtime journalist who teaches media law and history of journalism.

Yesterday we wrote about democrats continuing to duck the inaugural and continuing to call Donald Trump “illegitimate”

Well apparently James O’Keefe has discovered that leftist groups in DC are taking this to heart.

So given this very public stance by the Democrats on Trump’s legitimacy and the video of these leftists planning criminal violence I’ve sent the following letter to both of my senators via email:

Good Evening:
As you might be aware several members of congress from your party have said they were boycotting the inauguration of Donald Trump, several from John Lewis to one of the candidates for DNC chair have stated that the president elect is not legitimate.
However you might not be aware that a group of people are apparently running with this planning on criminally disrupting the inauguration even to the point of deploying butyric acid to disrupt gatherings.
Therefore I have the following questions:
1.  Will you publicly declare that Donald Trump is the legitimately elected president of the United States?
2.  Will you publicly disavow any group or individual attempting to criminally disrupt the inauguration or events surrounding it based on Donald Trump being an “Illegitimate President” and condemn any such acts
3.  Will you publicly call upon other elected democrats, regardless of their opinion of President Elect Trump to do the same?
Be Aware that this email is being published and later this week I will be publishing your response if any to it.
Thank you
Peter “DaTechGuy” Ingemi
Datechguyblog.com
Featuring DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven
Have Fedora Will Travel
Incidentally to any of you objecting to me calling on these senators to disavow this, let me remind you of the Todd Akin rule that was applied to republicans namely that it is valid journalism to demand that republicans comment and condemn any statement by any republican anywhere that the press might find objectionable.
Well I find violence against the inauguration objectionable.
I think it would be a good idea for you to contact the offices of any Democrat senators and reps too and ask them the same questions I have, particularly John Lewis and his crowd.  Let’s get them on the record either supporting or denouncing this violence

I’ll let you know what they say, if anything later this week.


2016 Fabulous 50 Blog AwardsIt’s 2017 and we have a new chance to make our annual goal which requires $61 a day.

[As of Jan 11th between subscribers and tip jar hitters we are at a 64.9% pace for 2017 $436 of $671 based on our daily goal]

If you’d like to help support our award winning independent non MSM journalism and opinion from writers all over the nation like Baldilocks, RH, Fausta, JD Rucker Christopher Harper, Pat Austin, and John Ruberry plus Monthly pieces from Jon Fournier, Tech Knight and Ellen Kolb and want to help pay their monthly wages (along with the cartoonist) and new writers I’m looking to hire) please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to go to CPAC and cover major events in person all over the country and maybe take some of Da Magnificent Seven writers with me.

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Gondorff: There ain’t a fix in the world gonna cool him out if he blows on ya.

Hooker: I’ll take him anyway.

Gondorff: Why?

Hooker: ‘Cause I don’t know enough about killin’ to kill him.

Paul Newman and Robert Redford in The Sting

“Sincerity? I could fake that.”

Alan Alda as Hawkey Pierce, M*A*S*H,
“Foreign Affairs” Season 11, Episode 3

Christopher Harper did a great job of explaining liberalism in a recent post. I’d like to share a slightly different perspective.

I have long subscribed to Charles Krauthammer’s rule fundamental law of American politics that conservatives think liberals are stupid while liberals think conservatives are evil. Let’s face it, some of the policies that liberals promote are pretty stupid. But to ascribe many of the things liberals do to simple stupidity requires an underlying concession that they are good-hearted souls trying to do what they think is best for the country but, as Ronald Reagan said, “they know so much that isn’t so.”

However, seeing the behavior of the democrats since losing the election in November, and considering their behavior going back to Teddy Kennedy’s original “borking” of Judge Robert Bork in 1987, and his original immigration reform back in 1965, it’s obvious that, like in The Sting, they have been playing the “big con” for more than 50 years. In the space of a few hours, an entire party and their stenographers in the Press went from being “horrified” at the “direct threat to our democracy” that anyone might not accept the results of an election to not accepting the results of an election because John Podesta was too stupid to sniff out a phishing scam (hmmm… more evidence to support Dr. Krauthammer?). Even on what should be a decorous occasion for the “peaceful transfer of power” in the House of Representatives last week, Nancy Pelosi was ungracious enough to allege, with no evidence, that the election was “subverted by the dark operations of a foreign regime.” Everything they’ve done for the last two months has been to deligitimize the new administration, and for one very good reason. They are scared to death that Trump might actually Make America Great Again.

Having painted Trump and his cabinet nominees as hateful-corrupt-xenophobic-racist-homophobic-bigots who will be dedicated to accommodating their Russian masters to whom they owe their positions, the democrats have taken the only possible path out of the corner into which they’ve painted themselves. If Trump crashes and burns, they can say “we told you so” and if he succeeds, their only option is to try to claim credit for having chastened or otherwise boxed him in to prevent what would surely have been a disaster had it not been for their courageous stand against all they’re pretending he claimed to stand for.

How can anyone take seriously this group who, after painting Mitt Romney (Mitt Romney!) as the second coming of Satan four years ago, then urged the republicans to save themselves from the Trumpacolypse by screwing the rules and nominating Romney? Just like Hawkeye in MAS*H, they have become very good at faking sincerity, and I continue to be stunned how so much of our country can be so uninformed as not to notice. I submit that rather than thinking liberals are stupid, we conservatives would do better to recognize that liberals are power-craving weasels who will do anything to accumulate power for themselves regardless of whether it is good for the country as a whole or for the people in it. It will make it even more enjoyable to watch Trump’s cabinet get approved with a simple majority in the Senate after the Reid-weasels abolished the filibuster.

Why is it so difficult to talk with liberals?

Liberals tend to feel more than think. They feel others’ pain. But they don’t feel conservatives’ pain.

A college classmate recently posted a photo of a Nazi flag next to an American one as an example of her growing concern about hate in the United States as a result of the election. I asked her where the photo was taken? She didn’t know. Who put up the Nazi flag? Did he or she vote for Trump? How many similar examples existed in the United States? Did she know that such a display—although reprehensible—was protected under the First Amendment?

She told me she felt the pain of those facing hate. I replied that it is difficult to determine whether hate crimes are increasing significantly and whether they are tied to Trump’s election. Initial indications show that hate crimes are tied to terrorist attacks at home and abroad more than any other factor.

Liberals change the issue when confronted with facts. A former student who is a college professor said that Donald Trump should not receive any credit for getting the Congress to back down from its decision about changes in the ethics office. I noted his tweets that suggested Congress should address more pressing issues. Therefore, I said, Trump should get some credit.

My former student linked to a post from thinkprogress.org, an unreliable leftist website, that argued that voters turned the tide by contacting their Congressional representatives. You might know that Think Progress has a senior editor who was worried his plumber might have voted for Trump and could physically attack him during a visit. See http://freebeacon.com/politics/thinkprogress-senior-editor-is-scared-of-his-plumber/

I pointed to an article from The Associated Press and a column from The Washington Post that credited Trump with causing the onslaught of the voters’ calls.

My former student then argued that Trump should not get credit for saving 700 jobs at Ford because it was President Obama who saved the auto industry through a bailout. I missed the logical line from ethics to jobs, but that’s what liberals do: change the argument.

Liberals usually think they are the smartest people in the room. When faced with a counter argument, liberals either raise their voices or show disdain rather than entering into a serious discussion about an issue. Liberals HATE discussions, using a variety of logical fallacies. Here is a useful site about logical fallacies—one I give to my students: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

I confess that I was guilty of all of the above when I was a liberal. Many people would argue that I am still guilty of them as a conservative. Maybe so, but I think I am a whole lot better off than I used to be.


Christopher Harper is a longtime journalist who teaches media law.

By John Ruberry

“So listen, there’s still a little bit of it to go,” the host of NPR’s witty Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, Peter Sagal said as he opened his New Year’s Eve show, “but all the pundits and the pollsters have already called it: 2016 will go down as the worst year ever.” Which led moderator Bill Kurtis, the longtime journalist and Chicago news anchor to reply, “Sure, 1346 had the plague, but at least Black Death was a cool name.”

I’m here to explain, at least for me and people who visit Da Tech Guy and my own blog, Marathon Pundit, that 2016 was a darn good year, and absolutely a better one than 1346.

Defying the “pundits and pollsters,” but perhaps not the same ones Sagal was talking about yesterday, Donald J. Trump was elected president–he’ll be sworn into office in nineteen days. Although not as historic as being the first African-American elected to America’s highest office, Trump will be the first president who was not a prior public office holder or a general. That’s yuge.

Like Bob Dylan in 1964 keeping his love for the Beatles to himself and not, initially, telling his folk-music pals, I secretly hopped on the Trump Train in the autumn of 2015, but I was a vocal passenger well before the Iowa Caucuses. Like Sean Hannity, I saw Trump’s, yes, historic candidacy as the last chance to save America from collectivism and socialism, mediocrity, malaise, globalism, cronyism; and in what would have sealed the unpleasant deal, a runaway leftist Supreme Court. I am not an aberration, there are tens-of-millions of Americans who look at the rise of Trump in a similar manner.

A Hillary Clinton victory could have possibly hobbled America as much as the 19th century Opium Wars did to China. A large and populous nation does not necessarily mean that it will be a prosperous and powerful one, as India and Indonesia show us. And Russia is not prosperous.

I look at Trump’s win as the best news of the decade. But even as blogs and new media continue to prosper–my blog’s readership soared last year–the old guard media, which is dominated by leftists, for the most part despises Trump. Their bad news needs to be your bad news.

My daughter at the old
M*A*S*H set

The old year of course will forever be remembered as the year of so many celebrity deaths, which included Leonard Nimoy, B.B. King, Ben E. King, Dick Van Patten, Omar Sharif, Yogi Berra, and in one last cruel harvest by the Grim Reaper, a beloved actor from the television show MASH, Wayne Rogers, passed away on New Year’s Eve.

Wait…wait…don’t tell me! Yes, those are deaths from 2015. Celebrities die every year. Trust me, they really do.

Okay, second verse almost as same as the first: In 2016 the celebrity departures included David Bowie, Prince, Florence Henderson, George Michael, Carrie Fisher, and in one last cruel harvest by the Grim Reaper, a beloved actor from the television show MASH, William Christopher, passed away on New Year’s Eve.

[Editorial note: The WordPress blogging platform does not like words with asterisks within them.]

Admittedly, some of these celebs are a bit different from the Class of 2015. Although enigmatic, Bowie, Prince and Michael meticulously cultivated their public images, they became familiar presences on MTV; so people, even if they weren’t fans, believed they “knew” these performers, and their 1980s videos enjoy eternal life on VH1 and on YouTube.

Fisher played Princess Leia in Star Wars, which was arguably the most influential movie, both artistically and in the business-sense, since The Jazz Singer. If you haven’t seen Star Wars, then you probably haven’t seen many films. Florence Henderson’s TV show, The Brady Bunch, was not a first-run success, but it achieved legendary status on the re-run circuit. Like Bowie’s “Modern Love” video on MTV, sometimes you need to watch something every day instead of once-a-week for it to be properly digested.

Oh, I mentioned earlier that Dick Van Patten of Eight Is Enough died in 2015. And few cared because I’m pretty sure you have to buy DVDs of his show to watch it.

As members of the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation pass on, there are proportionately more self-absorbed people remaining, those of course being the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and the Snowflake Generation, many of whom view every event, whether it is a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, an election, and of course, a celebrity death, as being about themselves. When Ish Kabibble, a kind of proto-Jerry Lewis, died in 1994, my parents didn’t take it as a personal loss.

John “Lee” Ruberry of
the Magnificent Seven

Here is some more good news from 2016: Third quarter growth in the United States was a robust 3.5 percent, perhaps because the end of the Obama era was in sight. And since Trump’s win, the stock market has been soaring, clearly many people, smart ones, are confident that 2017 will be a year of strong economic growth.

Now if we can only convince the self-absorbed ones to stop thinking about themselves so much, then 2017 will certainly be a great year.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

And that the slaves were never freed

by baldilocks

There were all kind of attempts to lure the GOP state electors into voting for someone other than Donald Trump. A few took the bait, but so did some Democrat state electors; Hillary Clinton lost even more electors that Trump did. But, now that the Electoral Vote is done—yesterday—and now that Trump is again the victor, but Clinton won the popular vote, there’s a new meme emerging: that the Electoral College is racist. Yes, you read that correctly.

The New York Times leads the outcry with a description of the three-fifths clause in the Constitution and a distortion of its relationship to the Electoral College.[i]

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations [Ed.: slaves and Indians—and women]. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

A more detailed description:

For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people [sic] of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. (…)

The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections.

However, as time moved forward, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not provide the advantage for which the Southern states and slave-owners had hoped. The Northern states grew more rapidly in terms of population than the South. Even though Southern states had essentially dominated all political platforms prior to the Civil War, afterward that control would be relinquished slowly but surely. It would not be until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was be enacted in 1865 that the Three-Fifths Compromise would be rendered obsolete.

Bloody Kansas Era Editorial Cartoon

The Compromise was a trade-off because no perfect solution to the slavery conundrum was available at the time. It was an advantage to the South at first, but over time, the advantages amounted to nil. (This also explains Bloody Kansas.) Strategy.

Thus was the infant USA not born the perfect USA; it was born with a birth defect—an “original sin” just like every other nation on earth. ( The Organized Left always wants to talk about “original sin” even when they don’t believe in real sins—at least not those committed by their ideological allies.)

If the North had not compromised, one wonders what would have happened. Two nations would have likely been born and lasted about as long as 1812—the year of the next war with the British. And that time estimation is a generous one.[ii] And even if those fantasy nations had lasted, one wonders when the Southern Nation would have ever abolished slavery.  Sounds like a Democrat’s…er…Confederate’s dream, no?

So it is that the EC and the Compromise ensured that a USA was born, grew and matured and that her citizenry and liberty expanded.

But, it seems to me that the NYT editorial staff dreams of a never-born United States of America and believes it’s never too late to have an abortion. What a surprise.

[i] By the way, let’s not forget that Alexander Hamilton was a leading advocate and architect of the Electoral College.

[ii] There were three wars between the end of the Revolution (1783) and the War of 1812: The First Barbary War, The 1811 German Coast Uprising, and Tecumseh’s War.

RELATED: Electoral College Mission Accomplished All Around Left, Media and Right

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

Americans supporting candidates other than Donald Trump had 17 months to make the case to America why he shouldn’t be the next President of the United States. Based upon the rules set forth in the Constitution and subsequent election laws passed over the last 220 years that every candidate agreed to when they initiated their campaigns, Trump won the election. This matter is settled with one viable exception.

Before we get to that exception, let’s discuss the things that are not exceptions to the rules. They are relevant because they’re currently being used by the left in an attempted to sabotage Trump’s victory. As a proud member of the new Federalist Party, it disgusts me that so many Democrats are attempting to invoke the safeguards set forth by our founders to subvert the powers of the electoral college and prevent Trump’s ascension to office.

Fear of ridicule, harassment, persecution, or physical harm are not valid exceptions for electors to change their votes. It’s a sad state of affairs that we have to point this one out, but that’s the tactic that many Democrats are using today. Attempting to bully electors isn’t just immoral. It’s against the law, but it’s worse than that. It’s an action that eats away at the foundation of this nation.

Admiration of Hollywood celebrities and their “enlightened” perspectives is not a valid exception for electors to change their votes. The ridiculous video many of them put out in a plea for electors to change their votes is allowable and almost admirable… if you forget that it’s a ridiculous video. While I’m skeptical about its actual core intention, if we take it at face value, it’s still pretty silly. Again, the attempt would be admirable in a way because it’s a protected expression of an opinion, but in this case their opinion is futile. Even if their message succeeded, it wouldn’t change the result of the election.

Lastly, mass media anti-Constitution propaganda pushed from the highest office in the land and spread through the Democrats’ mainstream media minions is not a valid exception for electors to change their votes. We are a constitutional republic with an electoral college safeguard in place to make sure the worst-case scenario doesn’t happen. Trump may be the worst-case scenario in the minds of many Democrats just as President Obama was the worst-case scenario in the minds of many Republicans, but neither represented a true existential threat to America. Obama did damage, but we can recover. Trump will do some good and some bad, but it’s unlikely that he will single-handedly propel us into the abyss.

That brings us to the viable exception. Of the pieces of the Constitution that were debated by both sides, the electoral college was the most agreeable. It was called “excellent if not perfect” for one important reason. Their fear in the 18th century is possibly a relevant fear today. They believed that the electors could have the discernment necessary to make certain the next President wasn’t planted by a foreign power.

In The Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.

In short, the founders didn’t simply want to prevent a bad choice for President. They wanted to prevent corruption in any form but specifically corruption by foreign powers. While some might make the case that Trump has too many connections to Russia, it’s hard to imagine that he’s an actual foreign conspirator planted in office to bring down the country. I could easily make a case that Hillary Clinton was even more likely to be influenced by foreign powers had she been elected, but she thankfully was not. With that said, I have called on conservative media to help sort this whole Russia business out.

If electors truly believe that Trump is a Russian plant who will intentionally bring down the nation on orders from Vladimir Putin, they should exercise their rights as electors to prevent it. If they believe the more likely scenario that he’s a patriotic American who wants to forge a good relationship with Russia, then that’s simply not viable grounds to change their vote. For the sake of as smooth of a transition of power as possible, the electors should vote for whoever their state’s voters selected as President. The final tally should be 306 to Trump, 232 to Clinton.

A car was defaced with slogans in South Philadelphia.
A car in South Philadelphia was defaced with racist slogans.

Two recent events in Philadelphia underline the hypocrisy of the attacks against Donald Trump as a racist.

Only two days after the election, a local news website carried this headline: “Racist and pro-Trump graffiti appears in South Philly following election.”

The article in philly.com described graffiti on cars: “One of the damaged cars was a white SUV that had ‘Trump Rules’ and ‘Black Bitch’ spray-painted across it in large black letters.”

Buried a month later was a story about the arrest of an African-American man from New Jersey who was an ex-boyfriend of one of the victims whose car had been painted with the slogans. What went unsaid was there were no indications that the man had anything whatsoever to do with Trump and his campaign. To make that obvious point, however, would fail to continue the meme of Trump and his followers’ racist tendencies.

Fast forward to an incident just around the corner from my home in Northwest Philadelphia. On Nov. 25, surveillance video captured two men spray painting “F— Trump,” causing an estimated $3,000 to $10,000 in damages.

Police identified assistant city solicitor Duncan Lloyd as one of the two perps. He appeared in the video as a wineglass-toting man clad in an ascot and blazer, who appeared to raise his cellphone to photograph his still-unidentified accomplice.

That’s right! The guy who helped to damage property in my neighborhood is a lawyer for the City of Philadelphia! One might think that he would be fired for his actions, but Philadelphia is a Democrat-controlled sanctuary city. The mayor, Jim Kenney, referred to Lloyd’s actions as “a dumb mistake.”

The city attorney gets to keep his job, and no charges have been filed against him. Just imagine what would happen to someone who painted “F— Obama” on the side of a building in Philly.

The Philadelphia Republican Party has called for Lloyd’s firing. Chairman Joe DeFelice issued a statement shortly after Lloyd was identified.

“If the image of an upper-middle class city attorney clad in a blazer and sipping wine while vandalizing an upscale grocery store with an anti-Trump message strikes you as perhaps the most bourgeois sight imaginable, that’s because it is. Nothing can better represent the hysterical pearl-clutching of the ‘progressive’ elite in response to this earth-shattering election when residents of Chestnut Hill and similar neighborhoods across the country discovered – gasp – that other people have a voice too. The assistant city solicitor in question had ostensibly taken the law into his own hands since a democratic election didn’t yield his preferred outcome.

“For somebody with extensive legal training to feel entitled to vandalize a newly opened supermarket strikes us at the Philadelphia Republican Party as an astonishing feat of idiocy. Did the extra glass of Shiraz give him some sort of delusional confidence that there are no cameras on Germantown Ave? The taxpayers should be entrusting exactly none of our faith into this man. He should be fired from our city’s law department immediately.”

Amen!

See the wine-toting guy at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZwz9JRmUg0&feature=youtu.be

————————————————————————————————————–Christopher Harper worked as a journalist for many years and teaches media law.