Good headline news

image credit: breakpoint.org

At Conservative Treehouse: True The Vote Wins Historic $2 Million Settlement Against IRS….

At Legal Insurrection: VERDICT: Jury awards Gibson’s Bakery $11 million against Oberlin College

# # #

Circumventing the Electoral College

Jeff Parker cartoon credit: capoliticalreview.com

The 2020 elections will probably involve so many types of corruption that Al Capone would be envious. Stuffing the ballot box. Voters casting ballots more than once, including in different states. Voting early and often. Counting the votes of the deceased. Tampering with electronic voting machines. There are efforts to grant felons the right to vote – while they are serving their sentence. The Democrats don’t play by the rules, so they are busy trying to change the rules.

At American Thinker, David Horowitz of FrontPage Magazine explains the Democrat party’s plan to end-run the Electoral College. It’s a must-read. Here’s the opener:

While you were sleeping, the Democrats (abetted by some deviant Republicans) have been working on a plan that would destroy the diversity of the American political system and bring the nation to the brink of civil war. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and tens of millions of dollars have already been spent over several decades trying to implement it. Fourteen blue states and the District of Columbia have already joined the Compact, which means they are 70% on the way to making their proposal the law of the land.

The Democrats’ plan is designed to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College in choosing the nation’s president, no doubt because while Hillary won the popular vote she failed [to] win necessary votes in the Electoral College. Eliminating the influence of the Electoral College would end the diversity now embodied in the federal system with its division of powers between Washington and the fifty states. 

The fact that a party which presents itself as a defender of diversity should be leading the charge to eliminate the nation’s most powerful source of diversity should be all that is required to understand the threat their agenda poses to what has been the nation’s constitutional way of life for 232 years.

The Electoral College and the division of powers are features of the Constitution. But the National Popular Vote movement does not propose to amend the Constitution because it doesn’t have the votes to do that. Instead, in the name of “democracy,” it proposes to circumvent the Constitution and its requirement of large national majorities for amending what has been the fundamental law of the land. Think how Orwellian that is, and how concerning it should be for anyone believing the Founders created the most practical, realistic, democratic, diverse and successful polity the world has ever seen.

This is how the Democrats’ circumvention of the Constitution and its provision for an Electoral College would work. Instead of abolishing the College, which would require the support of two-thirds of the states, they are hoping to put together a coalition of states representing 270 electoral votes that would agree to award all their votes to whoever wins the national vote. In other words, if the popular vote is won by 10 votes, every state in the Compact would award 100% of their votes to that party, even if a majority of the voters in their state voted against them.

The bottom line (and goal) of this devious plan is to eliminate the influence of rural voters or “Middle America” and create an electoral lock for the large urban population centers, e.g., California and New York, which would then decide the direction of the country.

The rest of Mr. Horowitz's article is here. The good news: Ohioans dodged a bullet this time, as the organizers dropped plans to try to get the issue on the ballot in November 2019:

[April 2019] Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced in a press release Tuesday that the amendment had been formally withdrawn by its backers, Ohioans For Making Every Vote Matter. The group said in a statement there wasn't sufficient time to gather enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 5, 2019 ballot.

On Twitter, LaRose called the decision "nothing but good news." 

"The only thing this flawed amendment would have accomplished is to make sure your vote for president is essentially meaningless," he wrote.

The bad news: This issue surely will not go away.

# # #

A salute to our military

Here a few fading photographs taken on this blogger's father's Brownie Box. He was the skipper of LCT 2454 that delivered troops and equipment onto Utah Beach on June 6, 1944. Today marks the 75th anniversary. 

# # #

Why we remember D-Day

Photo credit: Real Clear Defense

Lots of reports on commemorations of D Day this week. Here's a succinct report by Emma Watkins and Alexandra Marotta in a column for The Daily Signal:

If the invasion of Normandy had been unsuccessful that day, Europe might have remained under Nazi control, and our world might look much different today. That battle was the tipping point needed to liberate Europe.

The American troops who fought in D-Day were not fighting to liberate their own land. They fought to preserve the free world.

Most of those troops probably didn’t wake up that morning anticipating that their sacrifice would change the world. They got up knowing only that they had work to do.

That’s a valuable lesson for a generation that often sees going to work as an obligation, rather than an opportunity to effect change.

Some 6,603 American troops were killed, wounded, or missing in action in the Normandy invasion. They fought for a cause that was larger than simply securing the beaches. That sacrifice is often taken for granted today. It is essential that we do not let the significance of what was achieved on D-Day be forgotten.

Read the rest here. Recently discovered color photographs of D-Day (see above photograph) and the Liberation of Paris are here. 

# # #

Remembering D Day this week

cartoon by Tom Stiglich via Townhall

# # #

Do you donate to conservative PACs?

Some years ago, our household stopped contributing to conservative PACs that supported various conservative candidates in a particular election cycle. One reason was that we did not always agree on their choice of candidates. So now we contribute directly to candidates we like, whether at local, state, or federal level.

Today I read about even more reasons to pause before writing out your check or filling out your credit card details. Here’s part of a sobering report at National Review by Jim Geraghty (via Instapundit):

Back in 2013, Conservative StrikeForce PAC raised $2.2 million in funds vowing to support Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign for governor in Virginia. Court filings and FEC records showed that the PAC only contributed $10,000 to Cuccinelli’s effort.

Back in 2014, Politico researched 33 political action committees that claimed to be affiliated with the Tea Party and courted small donors with email and direct-mail appeals and found that they “raised $43 million — 74 percent of which came from small donors. The PACs spent only $3 million on ads and contributions to boost the long-shot candidates often touted in the appeals, compared to $39.5 million on operating expenses, including $6 million to firms owned or managed by the operatives who run the PACs.”

. . .

In the 2018 cycle, Tea Party Majority Fund raised $1.67 million and donated $35,000 to federal candidates. That cycle, Conservative Majority Fund raised just over $1 million and donated $7,500 to federal candidates. Conservative Strikeforce raised $258,376 and donated nothing to federal candidates.

Full report (“The Right’s Grifter Problem”) is here. Let the buyer contributor beware.

# # #

The Last Longest Day - Fernandez

This coming week will mark the 75^th anniversary of the landings on the Normandy beaches. I’ll be posting a few blogs on the landmark remembrance of D-Day. Today, Richard Fernandez at PJ Media) contemplates the historical consequences of the Allied victories:

it is likely to be the last major D-Day anniversary while veterans are still alive.

. . .

Seventy-five years ago, the human impact of the invasion could scarcely be understated. Over 4,400 soldiers died in a single day, the Longest Day, so named in popular culture after Erwin Rommel's prescient observation: "The first twenty-four hours of the invasion will be decisive. . . . For the Allies as well as Germany, it will be the longest day."

It was an all-out throw of the dice. A maximum effort. There was no plan B if it didn't work.

. . .

And what of D-Day? Like the fading black and white chemical film on which its images were captured, modern culture has lost the detail, emotional tone and context once provided by living memory. What still remains is posterized, compressed and pixellated to the point where, to paraphrase Tennyson, "they are become a name." The Longest Day grows less distinct with each passing year.

Less distinct but no less real. . . .

Mr. Fernandez's full article, "The Last Longest Day," is here.

# # #