Leftist-Aphasia Outbreak! Doctors warn of potentially yet another epidemic!

America was startled this evening with this headline by Dana Loesch on Breitbart.com:

MCCASKILL CALLS IN FBI ON CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST

Earlier today, FBI agents dropped in on the home of St. Louis conservative Scott Boston over remarks he made about Sen. Claire McCaskill at a Tea Party Express rally in Springfield. Fortunately, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was able to break the news to him, as the informationwas first brought to the paper before Boston himself knew. 

Senator victimized by awkward disease

Yes, despite our hopes that the cause for concern had passed, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has confirmed that our worst fears are true, yet another outbreak of Leftist-Aphasia has indeed been detected, this time erupting in and around St. Louis Missouri.

According to the Mayo Clinic:

Aphasia is a condition that robs a person of the ability to communicate. Aphasia can affect your ability to express and understand language, both verbal and written. A person with aphasia may be unable to: ... Interpret figurative language literally.

This unusual strain of Aphasia has been officially termed 'Leftist-Aphasia' (also known by the more technical term of Proregressive Humorless Leftist-Aphasia), because it seems to affect only people of the leftist proregressive democrat persuasion, and only when they are exposed to conservatives using figurative language. Dr. Fun E. Bone, of the CDC in Atlanta, GA. says that,

"There's a strong likelihood that other psychological trauma may be involved (an impending landslide defeat of leftist candidates this November is one suspected cause), but it is difficult to tell in these matters. It is best to use caution, speak in simple sentences, and try to avoid saying anything that might require imagination or humor, in interpreting it."

The latest incident of this socially awkward disease seems to have been induced by a local Tea Party activist, Scott Boston, when, during a Tea Party Express event promoting conservative candidates here, Mr. Boston carelessly used figurative language within ear-shot (note to leftists: it's ok, Breath, the use of 'shot' is simply a figure of speech as well, no one is taking aim on your ears) of leftist operatives.

Mr. Boston was using imaginative language and punning (which is known to produce a notoriously virulent reaction in those victims stricken with the latest strain of Leftist-Aphasia) on the Senator's carefully crafted local image of a being a kind, cuddly and caring Senator, for which she is often called "Claire Bear", as a take off on the popular stuffed animals and cartoon "Care Bears".

Explained a sorrowful Mr. Boston,

"I was comparing her to like a giant Care Bear," Boston said in an interview. "If I said anything, I said, 'We need to kill the Claire Bear,' this idea that Claire McCaskill is this wonderful person running around doing great things for us."
Boston said that "in no way do I think the senator should be at all harmed."

Sen. McCaskill bravely fighting off
another attack of Leftist-Aphasia

No comment from Sen. McCaskill's office on whether or not it was true that she is even driven into anxiety when conservative 'friends' pronounce her name, though insiders whisper that is the case.

Sadly such simple usage of figurative language, which is so easily graspable by normal, healthy people, is fraught with difficulties for the victim of Leftist-Aphasia. Not only did the operatives rush back to campaign headquarters with the news that Tea Party activists were about to attack, but they showed their true fears by calling their #1 Support Lines, the media, in this case the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, even before notifying the FBI of the supposed threat.

Jake Wagman, a reporter with the Post-Dispatch, seems to have only caught a mild case of the disease, as is visible in his article, and doctors are speculating that this is possibly due to his having been told of the 'incident' second hand over the telephone, and from fellow leftists. Though the FBI had to, as a matter of procedure, investigate, a simple call to Mr. Boston's home disclosed the obvious fact that there was no threat involved or intended, at any time.

The CDC is concerned that this latest episode is indicative of a possible resurgence of the recent epidemic of leftist-Aphasia that swept Democrat circles nation wide. Readers may recall how for several months the entire party had seemed unable to understand even the simplest use of figurative language, erupting into media fueled tizzies whenever coming into earshot (breathe leftists, just breathe) of conservatives using words such as 'Target' or 'Kill the Bill', etc.

Doctors are warning the public that not only is using even such commonly understood terms as "Bang!", and "You're dead!" likely to induce an immediate outbreak, but apparently now even Metaphors may send your leftist friends & relatives into severe panic attacks.

Doctors confirm that they are still entirely puzzled by the fact that leftists themselves are somehow able to use such terms themselves, such as Charles Barkley's recent shouting out to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney,

"Mitt Romney. Listen main man, we're going to beat you like a drum in November. Don't take it personally. You seem like a nice guy. But you're going down, bro,"

, yet these same leftists are entirely incapable of grasping the same words and figures of speech when used by conservatives. No word yet on progress towards a long term cure for this cruel disease,

"Medical Science has only progressed so far, these things take time to understand and even begin to find cures for."

,explained Dr. Bone. The best we can do, he said, is to have patience, though he did suggest that temporary relief may be had for the public by voting Leftists out of office this November - it's the Right thing to do.

Missourians especially - show your compassion and help us help Claire! This Nov, send her home and allow her to get the rest she so desperately needs!

Redistributionism: Class Warfare by other means. Forward!

"Unbelievable" This is a word that used to be so handy, so useful, but now... events have caused it to be repeated, and repeated so often, that it's lost it's oomph and respectability... sort of like the sad fate of 'Awesome'. I mean, when what is unbelievable, becomes a common occurrence... can you really use the word "Unbelievable" anymore to describe it? For some time I've been searching for a replacement word, but so far, no luck.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means", Carl von Clausewitz

The latest issue that requires the word that can no longer be used, is that of President Obama’s adviser on his 'Financial Stability Oversight Council', who, in taking exception to Tucker Carlson's charge that the Obama Administration is engaging in Class Warfare, writes a blog post in which he reinforces his 'argument' with statements about the inevitability and rightness of Class Warfare... complete with an admiring quote from the father of class warfare, Karl Marx... while at the same time ridiculing the idea that the Obama administration engages in class warfare.
I read through this fellow's blog, Richard Bookstaber, his blog post which prompted this article from the Blaze, and a couple others of his... this is a guy who contradicts himself two or three times in every one of his posts... and this is an economic adviser to the President. This is the sort of "on the one hand... and on the other hand..." fellow, that you just know President Truman had in mind when he said "What I need is a one-handed economist!". He blatantly plays his cutesy games of 'trying to have' having it both ways, such as his opening criticism of Carlson for identifying the Obama administration as waging Class Warfare,

"There is little that matches the artfulness in waving off criticism of the widening income gap as “class warfare”. And there is little that matches the gullibility of those who follow along."

, and then follows it up two sentences later with,

"I am not picking sides in this, but I believe such a "war" can be justified, and indeed ultimately is inevitable."

No, no, not picking sides there at all, huh-uh, nope, nosiree. Neither Logic nor Consistency, let alone Integrity, are held in much esteem by these Forward! thinkers. He goes on to explain that class warfare is unavoidable:

"There is class warfare because the social and economic pie has to be split, and there is no objective way to do so."

, while concluding his post with a huffy little objection to those who found his textual gyrations... to be unbelievable, saying,

"I have received a number of comments that are diatribes and I will not be publishing them. Some are offended by this post and view it as being "communist propaganda" because it includes a quote from Marx."

I mean, seriously. What word is left to describe that, but 'Unbelievable'? But how can you use that word when everything that comes out of this administration, is equally unbelievable? It's right there, in your face, how can you not believe it?

Unb... (sigh) [argh].

Here's the central portion of his post and his quote of Marx,

"But regimentation and a dependable workforce became necessary once there was machinery to run and capital invested, and so with industrialization came an enforced workday. So it is not surprising that Marx stated the central battle of class warfare at the time in terms of the working day:

"The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand...the laborer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class. – Marx, Das Kapital"

Marx begins with an acknowledgement of the perception of rights on the part of both the capitalist and the laborer, but then argues that the question of the length of the working day cannot be solved by an appeal to rights, but only through class struggle, wherein “force” decides between “equal rights”. (Force can mean physical force, but can also mean the force of the political process)."

Richard. It's not your usage of a quote by Marx that has set people off, I use him all the time, especially this one:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "

, but your agreement and affirmation of all the underlying assumptions which Marx held... and which fueled his diatribes for Communism!

Bookstaber's assumptions include the notion that the world is a fixed pie, a zero sum gain, that Reason is impotent to bring people into agreement and instead Force, Social Warfare is inevitable, and justifiable. And then, very Alinsky like, he turns and accuses anyone who takes note of that, of unfairly calling him what he himself described himself as being! This fellow is a perfect peep-hole into glimpsing the modern proregressive leftist's disdain for Reality, Reason, and even Truth itself, preferring the New York Times approved method of 'Reason as a weapon, rather than as a tool to discover Truth'.

With Marx, he believes that

"Between equal rights force decides"

, or as he puts it,

"cannot be solved by an appeal to rights, but only through class struggle, wherein “force” decides between “equal rights”

For most civilized people, politics is scene as the forum where people agree to resolve their differences without resorting to force, through persuasion, voting and the rule of law... but for the proregressive leftist, that is too much work, to slow, too 'confining', or as Union Thugocrat Andy Stern put it, "If we can't win by the force of persuasion, we'll win through the persuasion of force."
What else do you think he is saying here with this,

"There seems to be agreement all around that action to change the situation, for the poor to improve their lot at the expense of the rich, is an affront to civil society. I am not picking sides in this, but I believe such a "war" can be justified, and indeed ultimately is inevitable. There seems to be agreement all around that action to change the situation, for the poor to improve their lot at the expense of the rich, is an affront to civil society."

Despite his little 'passive/agressive' shtick (" I am not picking sides in this, but I believe"), what he is saying, and says very clearly in his other posts, that some undefined elites must be 'empowered' to, as he quotes Rawls, wealth and rights and status are simply 'things' to be scooped up off the ground and parcelled out 'fairly' to all.

These people have stagnated at a pre-conceptual stage, rejecting thoughtfulness for ideology, principles for positions,as they morally preen themselves by basking in the glow of their own self-righteousness. They don't bother to think of what accounts for the wealth of the world today, even looted as we have been, our nation in particular, and the world in general, are immeasurably wealthier than 250 years ago... how? Why? Like Marx, they aren't interested in discovering what works, but only in taking what (magically) is, and redistributing it as they see fit.

• The reality of what was, and is, required to produce that wealth, they don't care about.
• The Rights which all people must be recognized to possess, and be respected, in order for such 'miracles' to come about, are of no interest to them,
• The confining of Power to a government of Laws, not men, are seen as obstacles to them.

The desire to seem generous, even at the expense of destroying all that has made such a world possible, and available for them to loot, is all they care about. In rejecting Reason, they are blind to the fact that production creates values which weren't there before such orderly mindfulness was employed, instead, they cling to the infantile assumption that there is only a fixed amount of wealth and the only question is how to seize the power to divide other peoples share of it in a manner that is pleasing to them and their assumptions.

Being an anti natural rights, fixed pie 'thinker' (aka socialist (Shhh!)), Bookstaber winds up his post with this gem:

"There is only so much to go around, and the efforts of one group or the other to assert a claim to a larger share can be called class warfare. It can be a war waged through changes in the taxes, in a restructuring of incentives and pay scales, an increase in the benefits given to the poor, or revolt. The first three are legitimate means in our society, and it is really taking a good joke to far to suggest it is damaging to the body politic for members of society to look at the differences in income and take action to redistribute in their direction."

In the eyes of the Forward!-thinking Proregressive Left, it appears that Redistribution is simply 'class warfare' by other means.

In his closing comment, Bookstaber had this to say, miffed that people should take exception to his comments:

"... It is natural to refer to Marx when speaking of the industrial revolution. Marx was a notable, even preeminent, social philosopher of that time."

But he does have a small point here that we can learn from, don't be trapped into calling them Marxists - they will simply say "No I'm not! I'm a registered _____". Words and truth have no meaning or obligation for them, remember the NYT, Reason is simply a weapon for them to win arguments and lies and fallacies are simply useful tools in that effort. Don't bother with calling them Socialists or Marxists or Communists, learn what is essential to each, identify them promoting those essentials, and hang them on their own petard.

How to conduct Class Warfare by other means
What are the essentials of their beliefs? As I noted above, one of their essentials is what Marx himself identified as being critical,

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "

The other is the ridiculing of, and elimination of, the understanding of the idea that our Rights are derived from our nature as human beings, Natural Rights. Jeremy Bentham summed their position on the concept, and of our Bill of Rights, being

"nonsense on stilts"

, which is pretty much the response you receive to this day when you try to tell an alphabet agency that they have no right to violate your rights and 'spread your wealth around'.

And then also the Wilsonian declaration that Constitutions and Laws were outmoded ideas, written for a slower, less advanced people, and that today we need to free government of its constitutional restraints so that those who know best can "Get things done for the American people!", or as a follower of Wilson put it, Professor Edward S. Corwin, nailed their fervent desire to transform our Constitution into

"a living statute, palpitating with the purpose of the hour."

Nearly every policy of the Proregressive Left in general, and the Obama administration in particular, boils down to these three, essentially Anti-American ideals, and there is a reason why 'Marxists' gravitate towards regulatory agencies, or agitate for more regulations - regulatory law is the covert means of implementing Marx's fundamental goal - the abolition of private property.

In a very real sense, regulatory law is the institutional method for the denial of individual rights, and property rights in particular - it is Class Warfare by other means.

Of Thee I sing...
The American Ideals are different.
Our Founders were true Liberals (don't mistake the leftist tyrants in sheep's clothing who pose under that term today). To be a Liberal in their day, was to be one who believes that Man's Rights are derived from the nature of man, not the decrees of men, and it understood that Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the fierce defense of them, was the political root and requirement of Liberty and the Free Market, without which, their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness would not be possible.

John Adams said of the right to Private Property

"This idea, indeed, implies liberty; because property cannot be secure unless the man be at liberty to acquire, use, or part with it, at his discretion, and unless he have his personal liberty of life and limb, motion and rest, for that purpose. It implies, moreover, that the property and liberty of all men, not merely of a majority, should be safe;"

And that to retain Liberty, we must be a people who,

"... define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men..."

Those ideas are central to what it means to be an American.

On the other hand....
To be a Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Proregressivist, Fascist or whateverist, is to fundamentally accept Marx's opposition to, and denial of, private property, as well as his, Rousseau's, Bentham's (and every modernist philosopher since), denial of Natural Rights, and no matter whichever particular ism they take cover under, they denote little more that their preferred style and degree of governing and how far and fast, they are comfortable in getting away with formally abolishing private property, Individual Rights, and the Rule of Law.

To state your desire to 'Spread the wealth around', and to implement legislation to accomplish that, declares and establishes your opposition to Natural Rights and the Right, and Principle, of Private Property, and indeed to the Rule of Law.

No matter the name they claim, they are in essentials and intents, Anti-American, to the core.

But all of this, which Bookstaber is constitutionally incapable of grasping, was put well by a commenter on his post, Abe, who said in part,

"Let me put it to you in simpler terms: You can't separate the man's political philosophy from the actions that flowed from it. It's the same as saying you look to Mein Kampf as a masterpiece of political philosophy but don't support Hitler's actions. I rest my case. "

Well said Abe.

For all their passive aggressive ploys, these are violent, though cowardly, and despicable people. Whether or not they are nice to their neighbors and cats I really don't care about, I care about the ideas they are attempting to subject us to, and make us subjects of. They are not people who can, or should, be trusted with the reins of the most powerful government on the face of the earth.

That We The People have allowed such people to rise to respectable positions in our society, to be teachers of our children, that we have voted them in to positions of power in our lives, over our lives, is nothing less than shameful. If History is any judge, if the results of such votes as these do not spread death and destruction across our own land and around the world, it will be nothing less than a miracle.

A Question to be Asked, Feared or Dismissed?

In flipping channels and skimming threads and listening in on a number of conversations, in many forms, especially on the part of what is supposed to be respectable analysis in  'The News', I've noticed an old question being brought up now and then, not too often, but often enough - a little byte of it goes a long way - and it's a question that goes unquestioned far too often.

I'm really kind of sick of it. It is by turns infuriating and disturbing. I'd like to see, just once, someone ask whether the question itself is a question that should be answered? Or feared? Or dismissed?

The disturbing part is seeing people doing their best to put other people into the position of having to answer this question, while even more people do their very best to bow to its legitimacy, while edging away from it, or doing their best to avoid it altogether, or even to flee from it - which I think gives away their own answer, and their capitulation, to it.

Why does no one ever question the question?

Way back when, at the opening of modernity, Niccolo Machiavelli asked the question this way:

"...whether it be better to be beloved than feared, or to be feared than beloved."

You need to think about the question itself, not your answer to it, but what it is after in your answering of it, "Is it better to be feared or loved?", do you notice the squirming sensation you have while reading it? Do you notice the uncomfortable sensation of having to concede something no matter how you answer it? This is not a question that is asked in order to hear your answer, but as a means of forcing you to give up your ground, and to retreat onto the questioners chosen field of battle (consider the source people, 'hell-ooo'... Machiavelli?! - that should at the very least raise a few flags!) The answer  Machiavelli gave to it, as advice to those who would be Princes over men, was:

" It will naturally be answered that it would be desirable to be both the one and the other; but as it is difficult to be both at the same time, it is much more safe to be feared than to be loved, when you have to choose between the two."

He acknowledges that people will resist the idea that they must be one or the other, but that, not surprisingly since his book is about Power and how to get and use it, he assures you that being feared will be more effective, 'safer' than being loved. As an aside, it always amazes me how incredibly naive are those who claim to be 'practical', but that's an issue for another post, for this post, the question itself is the issue that needs to be questioned.

The question, if you pay attention to it, to what it presumes and demands of you, is a foolish one, if, that is, it were actually after thoughtful consideration and useful information from you. It is not. It is not. Instead, it presents you with a false alternative and draws you out of familiar structure of your thoughts, and leads you onto indefensible ground, and abandons you there. Notice how he presents what are end results - being feared or loved - which are the results of other people's awareness of your behavior, over time, your actions, reactions, whether you are fair, Just, reasonable, kind, generous, murderous, etc - none of that is taken into account, nor in any sort of context - he simply demands that you dismiss the need to consider HOW and WHY you might be loved or feared, or who might (and who might not) feel that way towards you, and demands that you choose how you would rather be perceived by them - which by the way is not something that is in your power, but theirs.

There are a whole lot of assumptions going on in that question, and even more that is discarded out of hand, in asking it. There is also much that is potentially prevented from occurring, should you decide to answer it, such as thinking in principles, thinking in relation to reality, thinking towards a better understanding of what is true - all of that is prevented simply by answering this question, no matter which answer you give. If you answer it, you are under HIS power.

 But that is only visible if you bother to question the question.

If you don't... you are quickly lost. To begin with, it assumes that your goals, supposedly practical ones, should be centered upon how others perceive you to be, rather than on the soundness of your own actions. The question, if you accept it, demands that you accept the wisdom of pursuing how you appear in other people's eyes, and with no context whatsoever, it simply places you in an empty arena, facing a presumably daunting foe, with nothing to defend yourself but their love for you (a love which the question assumes to be a wimpy sort of 'nice feelings' for you), or their fear of you (which the question assumes can be great, if you buy into your ability to be frighteningly powerful).

This supposedly 'realistic', gutsy, 'powerful' question - is in fact, at root, a cowardly one, one which is so fearful of reality that it seeks to hide from it, one which demands that you surrender your world for theirs, and it is a revealing question, revealing of what the questioner believes, for what the questioner presumes, is that your life (and his) are ultimately under the control of the opinions of others. The question as such, answering either way, is one that weakens you immeasurably, simply by answering it.

This question, if you accept it as being a legitimate one, transforms the focus of your life into being what others think of you, with no connection to your actual life or with any other tie to reality... the result is that in answering it either way, it effectively enslaves you to the disintegrated perceptions and opinions of others - something which, at best, you truly cannot control - worse, no matter which way you answer it, it has forced you to surrender your ability to think in principles, it has forced you to surrender your understanding of Right and Wrong and cause and effect, in exchange for bowing your head to the pursuit of Power.

"... but words will never hurt me..." my Ass!

Obviously neither option is a worthy choice.

If someone is seriously asking this question of you, if someone attempts to maneuver you into a position of being where they think you have to reply to it, they are very likely hoping to mislead you into promoting their purposes, which will necessarily be leading you further and further from reality and deeper into error and falsehood.

The question itself should be feared, but not run from; rather, you should turn and face it, and with a shrug or a laugh, or both, dismiss it as the folly that it truly is. Their power really is as feeble as that, it is entirely dependent upon your giving them power over you, as with the Vampire at the door, they require your consent to enter your home to suck your blood - answer 'no thanks' and close the door in their face, and they are powerless. If they continue knocking and pressing you for an answer, offer them an alternative which will turn the tables on them somewhat, with a more honest version of their question, such as:

Is it better to be deserving of fear, or of love?

That puts the issue in an entirely different light, doesn't it? Rephrasing the question in that way will bring you, and them, back into the consideration of fundamentals, such as why do people love, and why do they fear? That will at the very least, put you back onto the ground of reality and within reach of Principle and Truth - which are your only realistic means of dealing with reality and gaining true power within it.

The short answer is that people tend to love because they perceive and believe in some manner of goodness in the other person, or object, which they love. That goodness which they love, they seek, seek to be with, and seek to make themselves worthy of, and through their very best efforts to become the person who does do what is Right and worthy of respect, they can acquire true value and authority. The actions of such a person are respected, even in disagreement, because they are seen as being Just and above petty and unworthy actions towards others, and as a result such people are also very likely to be people who are generous in matters of spirit and action. Such a person, a person with integrity, who can be trusted, is one who warrants the love of others, and history shows that people have, and will, go out of their way, far out of their way, of their own choice, to please, to live up to, and to defend, those they love.

That, is a good position to be in, in life.

The Fear that is not to be feared, but desired
But what does it mean to fear, or to be feared? Fear... as with most emotions, is not something which has only one cause, you have to ask about the nature of the fear and what caused it, because those causes can be both positive and negative. There are at least two forms of fear: Fear which someone seeks to generate in, and impose upon, others, by the anticipation of their unjust and harmful actions; or the fear which someone might generate within themselves for fear of actually acting unjustly. These are two very different Fears, and it is best that you know the difference.

A person can fear to lose the respect of those they love, they can fear falling short of what they know they themselves should do, and fear the shame and disappointment that their false actions might bring them in the eyes of the ones they love. This type of 'fear', spurs a person on to do, and do as well as possible, what they know they should do, and should do it because it is Right to do - not for appearances sake, but because it is Right to do them - under that internal motive power people will often undertake such actions which they might otherwise have shirked or avoided, in the effort to merit the judgment of those they love. People will often live up to their own greatest capabilities, only because the love of another inspired them to attempt it.

Such a love is not made up of feeble feelings, neither does it leave a person unprotected; the person who can inspire such love in others - not the appearances only, but the actuality - are tapping into something which those who pursue power will never achieve. In such a case, the ideas, emotions and actions of a person are directed towards a worthy goal, they are integrated and free from inner conflict and contradictions, Love and Fear work together and often generate like minded thoughts and actions from those around them, generating a power that is potentially unstoppable. There are many examples of people such as this from history which come to mind, George Washington comes to mind,

"First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in the humble and endearing scenes of private life. Pious, just, humane, temperate and sincere—uniform, dignified and commanding—his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting. . . . Correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence and virtue always felt his fostering hand. The purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues. . . . Such was the man for whom our nation mourns."

The Fear to be feared
On the other hand, when people truly fear the actions of another - it is usually because they are unwarranted, arbitrary and unjust actions, whose forces are being directed towards them and even physically threatening to them.

The person who sees being feared as a goal, is not a person who is regarded with respect, and they are not regarded so because they are not good - they are corrupt, they deal in falsehoods and pain, by choice and intention. Such a person who purposefully engenders such fears in others, is someone who regards being feared as a desirable goal, as is the case for someone who seeks after Power alone, Power over others, and by any means possible. With such a Machiavellian person, if they do happen to do some deeds that are seen as being good, you can be assured that they were nothing more than incidental and unsought, a necessary means to their ends; Goodness and Truth are not and never will be their aims, power alone is. In such a person corruption is their soul, corruption as a means to the power of acquiring what they do not deserve, their Ends Justify their Means, they take what they can, because they can, and are in the necessary habit of maintaining it by the only way left open to them by themselves: through intimidation, force, violence and fear.

Naturally people will seek to escape their attentions, will often knuckle under to them, or betray others to them, but these same people will also do nothing for them that they can avoid doing, and they will also do anything they feel they can get away with doing that will thwart their purposes or even destroy the person they fear, and they will gladly do so if and when they can. The only thing keeping them from that, is fear, and that fear must be ever increased to maintain such power over others, and as any trainer will tell you, there is a limit, there is a point where animals, and especially people forced to cower like animals, will snap, there is a point where the fearful will decide that accepting such abuse is no longer worth the price of their fears, and they will turn on the person who thought their fear gave them unlimited power over them, and unleash their fury upon them.

See Mussolini or Nicolae Ceaușescu, for reference.

The Powerlessness of seeking Power
The soul power such a person has in causing people to fear them, is the power he must seek from them and requires their assent to the power to intimidate and injure them - if they don't give into their fear of him, he is powerless. Such power is a chimera, it may seem to work for the moment, pragmatically, but it inspires in others not only fear, but hatred of them, and ensures that those they supposed to be under their control, will at the first available opportunity, seek their destruction.

That is the only power of power - the power to will towards their own self-destruction.

What is sought in asking the Machiavellian question, is the power to divide you from the solid ground of Principle, and to force you into acting upon 'what will work' for the moment, and as is typically true, they do so by the use of the arbitrary, in this case of presenting you with the false alternative of having to choose between being feared and being loved. There is only one thing you can be sure of, if these are the options being offered you, the betterment of your life, has nothing to do with why you are being asked the question they are asking you.





It's all Greek to me
As the old dead white guys said: 'Know thyself', and 'The unexamined life is not worth living'. Ask questions, rather than seek answers, and be careful of the questions you choose to answer.

One of those old Greeks, a master of questioning (though not necessarily of answering) was Plato. Plato, and what we have of his teacher Socrates through his dialogues, is someone who should be read by anyone who begins examining their life (there was a time when an Education could not be thought complete without having done so), though not without caution (a form of Machiavelli's question actually comes up in the dialogues). Many, if not most, of Plato's answers, I disagree with,  and for consequential reasons, but his manner of approaching questions is usually outstanding, and they have a way of making you consider what you otherwise might have remained asleep to.

Take this for instance, from the most famous of his dialogues, The Republic (which when read superficially has been used to support totalitarianism - always question the questions!), this passage with Socrates questioning Glaucon, is worth more than a moments consideration:

"...And he who, having a sense of beautiful things has no sense of absolute beauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that beauty is unable to follow—of such an one I ask, Is he awake or in a dream only? Reflect: is not the dreamer, sleeping or waking, one who likens dissimilar things, who puts the copy in the place of the real object?

I should certainly say that such an one was dreaming.

True knowledge is the ability to distinguish between the one and many, between the idea and the objects which partake of the idea.

But take the case of the other, who recognises the existence of absolute beauty and is able to distinguish the idea from the objects which participate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the place of the idea nor the idea in the place of the objects—is he a dreamer, or is he awake?

He is wide awake.

And may we not say that the mind of the one who knows has knowledge, and that the mind of the other, who opines only, has opinion?..."

Are you awake? Do you question the questions asked of you? Or do you, like a sleepwalker, simply put one foot in front of the other, and pass on unknowing of where you are or where your are heading?

The Questions you ask - and those you don't - the questions you are willing to entertain - or not - how they are posed and why, how they are pursued, are a much greater achievement and sign of Education, than any slew of skills or answers that an 'educated' person might amass and rattle off to impress you with.

If you want to live well and successfully, you'd do best to start with questioning the questions that others expect you to blindly accept.

In other words: Wake up!

Forward Regress!

Well the Obama re-election campaign has rolled out it's new slogan, for 2012, 'Forward!'. By strange coincidence, notes an article in the Washington Times, that word, slogan and theme, has been exceedingly popular over the last century amongst Marxists, Socialists, National Socialists (of the early 20th Century German variety), Communists, Stalinists, Maoists and Progressives. The Washington Times article points out,

"Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name "Forward!" or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called "Forward (generic name of socialist publications)."

"The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications," the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism."

Wow. Go figure, eh? Someone raised as a Marxist, who, as Obama said in "Dreams from My Father" (pg. 100-101), picked his friends and professors as Marxists so as not to be seen as a 'sellout',

“To avoid being mistaken as a sellout, I chose my friends carefully: The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets…”

(which, BTW Barack, that doesn't make you look 'alienated', it  marks you as being not only a sell-out, but a poser sellout, but I digress), what a wonder His Arrogantness & his campaign staff, would choose such an Anti-American slogan as their Campaign theme... well, I'm certainly wearing my surprised face. And please, if you think the smartest man in the world, and the smartest administration ever, stocked full of proregressives, communists, and Maoists, weren't fully aware that the most popular far left theme of the last century was 'Forward!' (hello, 'Progressive!' ?), then there's not a whole lot of nice things you've left me to say about your own ability to think things through. President Obamao wants to lead us Forward! to silencing the speech of his opponents, Forward! to trampling upon the freedom of people to abide by their religious beliefs, Forward! to forcing people to comply with how the government tells them how to live, Forward! to taking or destroying the property of those the mob is stirred up against so as to spread their (remaining) wealth around. Sorry, but that's not Forward!, that is not Progress, that is, as Calvin Coolidge noted, nothing but Regress. All of which, IMHO, is so very appropriate and fitting with my pet term for his and their ideology, ProRegressives.

What's a Proregressive? The tongue in cheek of it is:

• If you preen yourself marching for Free Speech... while shouting down all who disagree with you... you might be a ProRegressive Leftist.
• If you demand an end to oppression of the 99%... while promoting the political system that enslaved and murdered 90+ million people... you might be a ProRegressive Leftist.
• If you pander to 'contraceptive rights'... while attacking the political foundation of ALL Individual Rights - Property Rights... you might be a ProRegressive Leftist.
• If you freely Tweet praises for the rape and murder of an opponent... while twisting anti-spamming rules to silence her husband for denouncing you... you just might be a ProRegressive Leftist.

, but the harsh reality of it is that if you are a Proregressive (of the Left or Right), you believe in using Power to further the goals which you see as being worthwhile, those which you say will be for the greater good, as judged against the pragmatic needs of the moment. And Ladies & Gents, if that doesn't strike fear through to your bones, you haven't given it enough thought - Right and Wrong are not concerns of proregressives, only what it seems to them will work best for the moment is. Think of, for that special European flair, Gulags; or for the more mundane, run of the mill American version, think of Prohibition... or of forcibly sterilizing those 'who aren't fit to reproduce', that's the sort of thing that is easily justified when well meaning people look no further than 'what works for the moment' for the justification to do what they feel is best.

In recent months they've also struck notes of Forward!ness in their solidarity with seeking injustice for Trayvon! Calling the War on Terror at an end, and so much more. Gibson Guitar anyone?

Or do you recall their move against Fox News early on in the first year of their administration?

And just for poetic illustration, what does the Obamao (note: not a typo) campaign do right off the bat? Naturally, in the first :20 seconds of their inaugural campaign commercial, they look backwards, for someone to blame, Bush (natch), for their failing to halt the rising of the seas and wilting flower of hopey-changeiness.

Yep, definitely ProRegressives.

Proregressives don't lead forward into the future
I wish I could say that their proregressive paths had taken them into, and left them in, the past... but sadly, that's not the case, they are very much alive and kicking right here in the present day. Proregressives don't lead forward into the future, or the past, but instead they turn the future into the worst of the past, such as how they recently, in early 20th Century Brown Shirt fashion, sought out FreeMarketAmerica and Chris Loesch to be silenced for the crimes of disagreeing with them.

They targeted FreeMarketAmerica.org for publishing this video "If I wanted America to fail", which states the opinion that if you wanted to destroy America, you'd do exactly what the proregressives have and desire to do, and I completely agree with that.

They targeted Chris Loesch because he had the audacity to respond to some high minded leftists who were Twittering happily over the thought of his wife, Dana Loesch, being raped & murdered. ProRegressive's from the Right (Charles Johnson 'Little Green Footballs'), and from the Left, used a fun new tactic of going after those who disagree with them by - no, not by trying to come up with a better argument (as if!), no, rather than thinking, they organized an attack to accuse Twitter accounts of FreeMarketAmerica.org and Chris Loesch, by accusing them of being spammers, in order to get them deactivated silenced from Twitter.

Why? Well because, obviously if you identify yourselves as 'Liberals', a name respected by our Founders as being about defending Man's Right to live in Liberty ... then obviously what 'liberals' do, is to take people who are currently free to speak their minds, and gang up on them and shut them up, any way you can.

Just like the National Socialist Brown Shirts were wont to do.

Liberal? No, sorry, that's ProRegressive all the way.

Unfortunately for them, Chris isn't the shutting up quietly type, he began letting people know, even got me off my Twitter-duff, and gazillions of others, causing the #FreeChrisLoesch hashtag to trend worldwide several times (a big thing in the Twitter-verse). The Twitter people realized what had happened, that their automated spammer algorithims were being turned into Brown Shirts by the proregressives, and reinstated him... and had to do so several times to overcome their repeated attacks and get the issue resolved.

Funnilly enough, the Liztards & Progs tried to silence him and made him bigger & louder as a result (BTW, some guys put a 'Ghosts sit around campfires and tell Chuck Norris stories' type of ditty about it True Story Bro (The Chris Loesch Song)). As amusing as that incident turned out, the endarkened heart of the proregressive left is taking shape in the world again, all around us, in the streets, in the courts and in the media, and I hope that if you see a shade of it being cast in your corner of the world, you'll have the sense to speak up & out against it, because if you don't, rest assured that it will take over your corner, and much more.

These people, because they do not have truth, liberty, or even attractiveness (let alone Beauty) on their side, they are easy to defeat - but only if you try. But if you do, ahhh the joys of Conservativism, "To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women (or metrosexuals, as the case may be)!" Sorry, couldn't resist.

Forward! Regress... to where?
Where is all that Foward! ProRegress likely to take you? Where will it take us all, if we allow it? Back to the same places it has taken us in the past, each time people were foolish enough to mistake regress for progress. That very question was what financial advisor John Mauldin was recently concerned about, in his column:
I'm Worried

"I debated with myself about what to send as this week's Outside the Box. I have decided on a recent short but important post from my friend David Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer of Cumberland Advisors. He calls it "I'm Worried." There are some very thought-provoking ideas here, but what makes it particularly interesting is that I'm running into this sentiment more and more as I travel around the US; and when I'm abroad I also hear from people who are worried about the US. These are folks who rightly realize the world needs a strong US, both as an economic engine and as a leader ' a chairman of the board, if you will ' of a growing world. (Can the world grow and prosper without us? Of course, but not as easily, and the transition will not be pretty.)"

The heart of his friend's comment was a quote from Will & Ariel Durrant's "Lessons of History"

""Rome had its socialist interlude under Diocletian. Faced with increasing poverty and restlessness among the masses, and with the imminent danger of barbarian invasion, he issued in A.D. 3 an edictum de pretiis, which denounced monopolists for keeping goods from the market to raise prices, and set maximum prices and wages for all important articles and services. Extensive public works were undertaken to put the unemployed to work, and food was distributed gratis, or at reduced prices, to the poor. The government - which already owned most mines, quarries, and salt deposits - brought nearly all major industries and guilds under detailed control. 'In every large town,' we are told, 'the state became a powerful employer, standing head and shoulders above the private industrialists, who were in any case crushed by taxation.' When businessmen predicted ruin, Diocletian explained that the barbarians were at the gate, and that individual liberty had to be shelved unti l collective liberty could be made secure. The socialism of Diocletian was a war economy, made possible by fear of foreign attack. Other factors equal, internal liberty varies inversely with external danger.

"The task of controlling men in economic detail proved too much for Diocletian's expanding, expensive, and corrupt bureaucracy. To support this officialdom - the army, the courts, public works, and the dole - taxation rose to such heights that people lost the incentive to work or earn, and an erosive contest began between lawyers finding devices to evade taxes and lawyers formulating laws to prevent evasion. Thousands of Romans, to escape the tax gatherer, fled over the frontiers to seek refuge among the barbarians. Seeking to check this elusive mobility and to facilitate regulation and taxation, the government issued decrees binding the peasant to his field and the worker to his shop until all their debts and taxes had been paid. In this and other ways medieval serfdom began.""

He then says,

" It is about how the destruction of the Roman Empire through the taxation channel made people 'slaves,' in other words how serfdom emerged. This is my number one fear for Italy, but I guess France is making the same mistakes, just starting from a lower debt level. You can also find an online version of the book, thanks to Google."

I'll take issue with his characterization of Taxes as being the issue, rather than regulation, but at this point it's a small point, for as those marvelous historians noted, "Rome had its socialist interlude under Diocletian...." and it brought the final end of Roman liberties and the beginning of the Middle Ages age of slavery & serfdom. But we do still have one thing the Romans didn't have - them to learn from - and the availability of those, and other, facts, lessons and histories to anyone and everyone with either access to a library or the Internet.

Will we learn (in time) rather than repeat?

Well, not to be Debbie Downer all day long, but look at these recent stories and judge for yourself where we're headed IF YOU DON'T SAY SOMETHING, such as this article regarding recent Labor Dept proposals, Will my child be allowed to learn the value of work?

"It has proposed new rules that would restrict children under the age of 16 from working on a farm or ranch. The list of tasks youth would not be allowed to do is astonishing. For example, milking cows would not be allowed, and neither would building a fence. No youth under the age of 16 would be allowed to use a tool that was powered by any source other than hand or foot power. Strictly interpreted, that would eliminate kids using flashlights or even battery-powered tools. When hearing this, my 10-year-old son asked me if that meant he no longer had to brush his teeth since his toothbrush was battery operated. Nice try!"

Thankfully those were rolled back, but only because of public outcry, don't think for a second that those who wrote that proposal had their minds changed about it being right for them to impose them upon you. If you do think that, then this might help drive it from your mind, as SWAT teams are Raiding Private Farms to kill livestock,

"...the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has, in total violation of the Fourth Amendment, conducted two armed raids on pig farmers in that state, one in Kalkaska County at Fife Lake and another in Cheboygan County. Staging raids involving six vehicles and ten armed men, DNA conducted unconstitutional, illegal and arguably criminal armed raids on these two farms with the intent of shooting all the farmers' pigs under a bizarre new "Invasive Species Order" (ISO) that has suddenly declared traditional livestock to be an invasive species..."

That one is still fully in effect.

Looking beyond the moment might teach you which way Forward lies
Alexis de Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America, had some similar Good News/Bad News for us, putting a little light on the workings of our nation in the midst of forgetting who we are,

"The common man in the United States has understood the influence that general prosperity exercises over his own happiness, an idea so simple and yet so little known by the people. He has, moreover, become accustomed to regarding this prosperity as his work. So, in public fortune, he sees his own, and he works for the good of the State, not only by duty or by pride, but I would almost dare to say by cupidity.

[He values his rights as a citizen as his rights as a proprietor, and he takes an interest in the State as in his cottage or in the field that his labors have made fruitful.]

It is not necessary to study the institutions and the history of the Americans to know the truth of the preceding; the mores alert you to it well enough. The American, taking part in all that is happening in this country, believes it is in his interest to defend all that you criticize there; for it is not only his country that you then attack, it is himself. Consequently, you see his national pride resort to all the artifices and descend to all the puerilities of individual vanity."

But lest that seem too cheery, he also has a deeply cautionary note, as he usually does, which is amazingly relevant to our day today (as nearly all that he ever wrote usually is),

"But sometimes, in the life of peoples, a moment occurs when ancient customs are changed, mores destroyed, beliefs shaken, the prestige of memories has vanished, yet when enlightenment has remained incomplete and political rights poorly guaranteed or limited. Then men no longer see the country except in a weak and doubtful light; they no longer locate it either in the soil, which in their eyes has become an inanimate land, or in the customs of their ancestors, which they have been taught to regard as a burden; or in religion, which they doubt; or in the laws, which they do not make, or in the legislator, whom they fear and scorn. So they see it nowhere, not under its own features any more than under any other, and they withdraw into a narrow and unenlightened egoism. These men escape prejudices without recognizing the empire of reason; they have neither the instinctive patriotism of monarchy, nor the thoughtful patriotism of the republic; but they have stopped between the two, in the middle of confusion and misery."

I've said this before, and I plan to say it again as often as it is necessary and possible to do so, Our Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't enshrine free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, sanctity of contract, takings clause, gun rights, etc, because they were the most important and valuable of our individual rights, but because those were the most politically important rights, which if kept secure, would prevent a tyrant from successfully taking power and extinguishing all of our rights. With bailouts, business takeovers, proposed net neutrality acts, defacto 'fairness doctrine' measures, and targeting of an unapproved press, attacking freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of contract... that is arguably the road being paved for us to walk down... will we go down it?

Whatcha gonna do? It's up to you to find the true way Forward!

Nine out of ten dictators agree with Emperor Palpatine: "I love Democracy..."

In response to my previous post helping to rouse opposition to a harebrained scheme to dissolve Missouri into a National Popular Vote, one commenter objected that,

"The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate."

Hmmm. Does that language look at all odd to you? I began responding to the comments, but more and more it had that boilerplate look to the language, and doing a bit of Googling on that line alone told me that the truest thing this commenter said was this,

"I am clearly not odd or alone."

, which is only too true, for like Sybil, the commenter is simply copy & pasting the same boilerplate comments that have been pasted around the net in forums ranging from Ron Paul sites, to Christian forums, Bob McCarty & Bill Whittle articles, under the monikers of toto, SE, mvymvy, Susan Anthony and many others... apparently toto is Legion, which is particularly appropriate for a supporter of the National Popular Vote, a movement eager to transform the citizens of our nation into the Borg. One thing is clear, toto ain't in Kansas anymore, and with those green-energy powered emerald glasses on, everything smacking of Democratic collectivism looks like sparkling goodness... but for the rest of us with any concern at all for what is good and true, all that green just turns our stomach.

I was tempted to delete the twit, but then I thought, what the hey, it isn't every day you get to confront Legion, so... why not.

"I am clearly not odd or alone.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state...[reams of meaningless statistics]

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win. They want to know every vote equal, and every voter to matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

American voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic."

Notice the measure of what is right and best, in tofu's minds, is what the largest quantities of people can agree that they all want... and why does that make it worthwhile? Because they want it, desire it, hunger for it, they want the power to do what they want to do. And the surest means of going about getting what they want, is as true today as it was 3,000 years ago, by switching out Quality, for Quantity; abandoning Principle for pleasing Particulars; aka Tempting you with what you Desire in exchange for abandoning what you know Reality requires - aka: what is Right.

But as has been the case since the Athens's majority democratically voted to put Socrates to death for speaking his mind freely about what they'd rather not to have had to think about, the question that should come to mind, is,

'Is having a majority the measure of whether or not something is right?'

, and of course, answering as an enthusiast of democracy, as Legion has always been, their answer is Yesss. They love democracy. The modern proregressive left (and right), Presidente Chavez, Sadam, Castro, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Robespierre, all the way back to Emperor Palpatine - well ok, that reference may be too long ago... and too far away, but everyone else, from Thrasymachus who first put it to Socrates that Justice is whatever is to "the advantage of the stronger" or "Justice is what serves those with Power", or Might makes right!, whatever form the words take, democracy loves it.
Why? Look at a thumbnail sketch of Aristotle's Politics (I have some deep disagreements with his political advice in practice, but his analysis is top notch):

When the Sovereign power of the state is held by:

1. One person, for their benefit - we call that a Tyranny
2. Many people for their benefit - we call that an Oligarchy
3. Many people for the benefit of the State - we call that an Aristocracy
4. The Majority of the people for the benefit of the Majority - we call that a Democracy.
5. ???

Do you see the resemblance between the first, and the last? The Sovereign is out to serve the interests of the Sovereign, at the expense of the people... does it really make any difference whether or not the Sovereign is made up of one person, or a hundred million? The only real difference between them, as all the truly crafty democratic leaders discover, is that The Majority cannot serve themselves without selecting someone as their spokesmen, someone who will keep them focused on how best to serve themselves, and that is the place taken by the Demagogue, the rabble rouser, the 'man of the people!'... and guess who gets the majority of the power and privilege in that arrangement?

What is the fifth? The fifth, and best form of government is none of the above. The best form of government is a constitutional govt, one where the power of the state is held by:

5. The Law, for the purposes of serving the Rights of - not one, or some or of most of the people - but of serving the Rights of all of the people - that form of government we call a Constitutional Republic.

This alone has the potential of being a Just government. And it is particularly the enemy of the Tyrant and the Mob, because it prevents both from using, or even of acquiring, the 'freedom' to wield physical force to serve at their pleasure, which is what they assume to be true power (they're wrong of course, but that's for another post).

Tofu had many other glittering jewels to share with us, such as this:

"the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it."

An exercise of that power. Oh. That's all, just Power? Well... nothing to worry about there, then, nosiree Bob. But just to humor us right wing nut jobs, let's think about that, just for a moment, um kay? You see, Power can be exerted in many ways, power can be used to maintain stability. Power can be used to defend. Power can be used to attack. Power can be used to kill. To imprison. To uphold Justice. To commit injustice. To enslave. To take more power and leave others powerless in the face of it. There is no question that the power is in the hands of the States to exercise. The question is how should it be used, and why?

It is not a question of whether or not a state can choose to award its electoral votes pooled with how the popular vote of the entire populace, simple or plurality, might choose... but whether or not they should do such a thing, and why - or why not. Or do you think that simply having the power is justification enough for exercising it however you, and enough of them, wish... without restraint?
The fact of the matter is that our system was designed the way it is, with numerous restraints built in, and it is antithetical to the meaning, spirit and purposes of a Republic, of representative government, of federalism, and even to the rule of law itself, to allow such power to be used and abused by virtue of the will of a majority alone, inflaming the power and spread of demagoguery as it would unavoidably do.

What lures you, I suspect, and you reinforce, is the power to do as you will. The power of 'the people to choose!'... it is intoxicating, isn't it? Especially if you can throw it in the face of those who have lorded their power over you for ages? But what it will mean in practice, is the power it will give to those who can present particular choices, with rhetorical attractions and with as little substance as can be gotten away with. The 'National Popular Vote' is about accessing the power of the people, with as few obstacles as possible - obstacles such as consideration, discussion, vetting, deliberation on the proper application of principle, and with regard for the Rights of all, of whether or not the choice is right and wrong before considering whether or not it is desirable - but all of that, those annoying obstacles to action, are of little or no concern to those whose primary concern is whether it is popular, or not, because that majority vote is the closest thing to a straight line between two political points as possible - the two points being the Power of The People... and the power to take it and use it 'for' the people.

Our nation was created as a Republic for a reason, by men who spent a great deal of time reasoning upon the issues you blabber on about so thoughtlessly. Our Constitution was designed to hinder and slow down the 'will of the people!', so that a Just decision had a better chance of being acted upon, than a passionately desirable one. I do not have the least respect or admiration for Democracy, or those who advocate it, because I understand what it is, what it means, and what must and will result from it if it is ever attained.

Flunking out of Electoral College
Tofu continues to follow its nose, wherever it goes, now in the direction of the Electoral College:

"The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended. "

, and its words actually gets a lot correct here, though I suspect by accident only . The Founders intended the electoral college to be made up of those who represented the people of their districts - which is a very different thing from simply transmitting their will - the college was to be filled with those who could be counted upon to vote as their best judgment and conscience dictated. That is the meaning and purpose of representation - in the legislature, or the electoral college, a person represents the people they serve, they do not, or at least should not, simply serve as a proxy for the majority of them.

The issue of rubber stamping is in fact yet another 'unforeseen' (my ass) consequence of what the popular vote mania of a century ago brought us with the 17th amendment - also constitutional, and also extremely damaging to our republic and to your actual, meaningful representation in Washington D.C.

"The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections."

B.S. It does so in name only, gutting it of its purpose and meaning and making the Electoral College into a rubber stamp for a popular majority, aka: Democracy.

"It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. "

Duh.

"The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens."

Double Duh. Not only did they not require it, they feared it, and did what they could to avoid such a thing ever coming to pass. Being well versed in actual, worthwhile, history, our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine to the contrary, knew better than to encourage such idiocy.

"The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution."

Triple Duh and you're out! (If only).

"States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond."

Thank you Dora the democratic explorer (ralph). Please, take your pathetic 'make all of their voters relevant' back to your drum circle, along with all the rest of your therapeutic crap and shove it. Damn that's sickening.

The question that most needs to be asked, which we'll get to at the end, is what do you mean by 'relevance'? Is it simply seeing your hand counted amongst the millions of others? And what do you assume that representation does not include? But first you've left a couple other low hanging stupidities to be knocked down. Like this:

"Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments."

Yes, the people have spoken, or at least repeated at the polls what others led them to believe would make them more relevant, and those democratically driven attacks upon republicanism began before the ink dried on the constitution. Tell me, how 'relevant' should a person be to the governing of his community, if they have invested little or no responsible time and effort and property into that community? We're not talking about Rights here, or equal representation before the law - that is a given no matter your status or wealth, all are equal before the law - but how the community should be maintained, grown, the directions it should take - governed - if you have little or no stake there, why should you have a voice in deciding those affairs? If I had my druthers, I'd reinstate property requirements (though modest ones) for voting in everything from dog catcher to president. If a voter doesn't have a stake in the community that is being governed, they shouldn't be having a say in voting for those who are governing it.

And if you want to argue with that, answer me this, what is the likelihood that someone who has no stake in the community, is going to make good decisions for those who do? See modern day Detroit for reference.

"Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

Unable to agree... really. Although there was dispute as to the best way to implement it, as there was on nearly every single clause of the constitution, the reasoning behind Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, was fairly broadly understood, more so than many other areas of the constitution. Madison said of it,

"The difficulty of finding an unexceptionable process for appointing the Executive Organ of a Government such as that of the U.S. was deeply felt by the Convention; and as the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of the Session, it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience in all such Bodies, tho' the degree was much less than usually prevails in them."

It was not so much of an example of being unable to agree (you can read the full debate here), as it was an example of understanding that the federal, representative nature of the republic, required that such matters should as much as possible, be decided locally and outside the common concerns of power. And with that in mind, it is interesting that you chose to leave off the rest of the clause, here it is in full:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

, which part of it did you wish to avoid? Was it "...to which the State may be entitled...", or maybe the last "...but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.", or both? Or have you given it no thought at all? With 'The State may be entitled', that gives some significance to the consideration of the interests of the people of Their state itself, doesn't it? And with 'no Senator or Representative' or anyone else who held an 'Office of Trust' implies a quite a lot as well, doesn't it? 'Or Profit'. Why do you suppose that they were so adamant about that? An Elector to the Electoral College was to be none of these things, because they wanted to make sure that Electors would be as little influenced by popularity, or by being in any way beholden to those in positions of power, or commerce, or to the people at large - they made explicit that the Elector was to be free from powers other than their own reasoning and conscience when casting their votes. And I think that it's fairly clear that included in those powers that they were and are to be free of, is that of the power of popular opinion.

And although it is one of the most amended sections of the Constitution, the original wording is interesting,

"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. "

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot. Individual Electors were to vote by ballot, not by show of hands, not by polling or caucus, not with any concern for popular opinion at all, but from out of their own level best judgment. And their votes were intended to be tallied by State, not through a plurality of votes. James Madison, a few decades after the Constitutional Convention, in discussing needed revisions to the matter with George Hay, had a comment about your plurality of votes:

"The mode which you seem to approve, of making a plurality of Electoral votes a definitive appointment would have the merit of avoiding the Legislative agency in appointing the Executive; but might it not, by multiplying hopes and chances, stimulate intrigue & exertion, as well as incur too great a risk of success to a very inferior candidate? Next to the propriety of having a President the real choice of a majority of his Constituents, it is desirable that he should inspire respect & acquiescence by qualifications not suffering too much by comparison."

In other words, wouldn't providing a ready means for faction to escape the bounds of Federalism, be an engraved invitation for popular demagogues to excite interests and passions across borders? It would indeed, and that - that which you seek - was precisely what the Electoral College was devised to prevent. Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, had this to say,

" ...there remained various other modes, by which it might be effected; by the people directly; by the state legislatures; or by electors, chosen by the one, or the other. The latter mode was deemed most advisable; and the reasoning, by which it was supported, was to the following effect. The immediate election should be made by men, the most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favourable to deliberation, and to judicious combination of all the inducements, which ought to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass for this special object, would be most likely to possess the information, and discernment, and independence, essential for the proper discharge of the duty. It is also highly important to afford as little opportunity, as possible, to tumult and disorder. These evils are not unlikely to occur in the election of a chief magistrate directly by the people, considering the strong excitements and interests, which such an occasion may naturally be presumed to produce. The choice of a number of persons, to form an intermediate body of electors, would be far less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one, who was himself the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors chosen in each state are to assemble, and vote in the state, in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation would expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all convened at one time in one place...."

Our tofu Legion continues its ignorant opposition,

"...With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections."

And here you finally show yourself. We are NOT a 'representative democracy' and we are not a 'constitutional democracy', not sort of, not kind of, not at all. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic, some of whose members are democratically elected (Ideally only the Representatives).

For the would-be Dictator, what's not to love in Democracy?
But it is in here, that the demagogue seeks to have the people hear his wiles,

"Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election."

That is the sales pitch of the power luster,'Every vote will be counted!' but nothing could be more false than the assertion that a popular vote means that you, your vote, will gain in relevance and power. Under a National Popular Vote, every vote would be counted, and relegated to even more irrelevance, than the individual voter now 'enjoys' in their Senatorial elections, thanks to the 17th amendment.

Which is a good place to start, as everyone can see and feel it in practice right now.
Prior to the 2nd worst amendment to the constitution (loses by a hair to the 16th), each senator had to court, impress, reason with and keep faith with a relatively small number of legislators (Mo is something like 135), in order to win enough of their votes, to be elected as one of their state's senators. Of those handful of legislators, there were at least two (your state rep & sen) which you could easily know and have some influence with, and if you had friends with similar concerns on particular issues, you and your fellow citizens could easily make several of your state legislators aware of your concerns, and those legislators had easy access to the ear of your Senator. If that Senator did not give a good faith effort towards those concerns, concerns which your local legislators own elections might hinge on, then that Senator could easily lose their support and their vote in their next election - the equivalent of losing large swaths of the population in a popular vote.

That is representation that is relevant.

The original method of having your State's representatives elect your United States Senators, gave individuals not only a real measure of representation - their interests made known and relevant - to their Senators, but it secured their Senators attention, efforts and concerns, for the real interests of their states - they owed their office to local legislators, who knew the interests and needs of their constituents, and they had to address them in good faith to continue as a senator.

That ended with the 17th amendment, which brought "Equal Say! Every vote counts! Real Democracy!" to the people, trading away representation for a hand count and securing their relegation to sound byte status. Why?

When the senators depended upon the votes of a relative few legislators representing the entire state, campaigning and consulting with them was not only relatively simple to do, consumed little time and even less expense - visit the state capital, walk the halls, and it was accomplished. Substantive discussions could be had, and worthwhile decisions could be made, with very little in the way of concern for misleading publicity tactics and empty, but crowd pleasing, speeches.

Today, a senator ideally must campaign through, meet and greet, smile, blather cheery or condescending platitudes to the masses - quickly - across the entire state. Which is not possible. It isn't feasible in terms of time or logistics, and the expense of even attempting it would be prohibitive.
So what they must do, is what they do do - they hit only those areas whose populations are sizable enough, and potentially favorable enough, to make it worthwhile (meaning get 'name recognition' out there). And even to do only that, is exceedingly expensive, it requires not only ads, signs, bumper stickers, campaign workers and staff, but transportation and a deep indebtedness to those who can provide the funds to do such a thing - hello special interests.

So thanks to "Popular Vote!" of the 17th amendment, you, the voter, are exceedingly unlikely to have any influence upon your senator whatsoever, you are unlikely to be able to let them know what concerns you, if you were able to meet it would be brief and shallow - heavy on sympathy and light on substance - and the person who will have real and lasting influence on your senator, will be those few people who can produce dollars and crowds.

And as far as your Senator caring about what your legislators care about in your neck of the woods... ask you local legislator when the last time was that their senator called them, let alone returned a call.
A national popular vote would go even further than we've already gone, towards making Mr. & Mrs. American an irrelevance in their Presidential Elections, becoming even more irrelevant, than every one's vote has been made by the 17th amdt (also constitutional, also fundamentally opposed to the concepts this nation was founded with). Despite the slight of hand methods of tallying votes and then 'awarding' electoral votes from your state, what it amounts to is that a candidate for president will need to travel only to those few population centers in those few states that can help deliver a majority of the popular vote. The reality of that means that wealthy and powerful special interests who can gin up popular opinion in their population centers, will become even more powerful, than they are now, while the suburban and rural voter will be of little or no concern as politicians will have even less incentive to fly over fly-over country than they do now, let alone stopping and campaigning through them.

That doesn't spell more relevance for the individual voter, but less. That is what it means to trade away your Representation for Relevance, and the enthusiasts for Democracy know it only too well.
We are a Republic, and each and every state is guaranteed to be a Republic by the Constitution, and your Liberty depends upon that fact more than you know. We are not a Democracy, get that out of your head, get that out of your ideas as standards to be measured against, and you can then concern yourself with what it means to have representation, and hopefully, eventually, you'll work to help us all regain it.