Foreign Digest: Venezuela, Ecuador, France, Syria, Russia and Turkey

Venezuela OAS expulsion

            Amidst ongoing demonstrations against the Socialist dictatorship, Venezuela is now withdrawing from the Organization of American States, which had criticized the Venezuelan regime for its bloody crackdown on dissent. 

Communist Cuba, an ally of Socialist Venezuela, is the only other state in the Americas that is not a member of the OAS.  The OAS should continue to encourage liberty in Cuba and Venezuela, as well as in member states Ecuador and Nicaragua.    

Ecuador’s authoritarianism

            Ecuador, which is led by an authoritarian leftist allied with Venezuela, is violating the freedom of the press through a new press law.  The Ecuadorian Government, which had abetted Venezuela’s aid for Marxist narco-terrorists in Colombia, also harbors an agent of the Russian Federation in its embassy in the United Kingdom.

French presidential elections

            The center-left candidate won more votes in the French presidential election earlier this week than three pro-Russian candidates, one of whom was far-left, one was conservative and the other a far-right nationalist.  The Russian Federation, which has interfered heavily in this election, has been particularly backing the nationalist candidate, who came in second. 

As neither candidate won a majority, there will be a runoff election.  The ruling socialist party candidate earned the fifth most votes, as neither major party will have a candidate representing it in the runoff for the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic.  Because of the threat to liberty and global security of a victory by the anti-European, anti-NATO xenophobe, the losing conservative candidate and a former conservative president, Nicholas Sarkozy, are backing the center-left candidate. 

The leading candidate, a former cabinet minister, has been targeted by Russian state hackers, as well as by Russian propaganda, as the same phony social media accounts that have been supporting Donald Trump are now supporting—in French—the nationalist candidate.  Trump had made favorable comments on behalf of the Russian-backed xenophobe who denies French culpability on the Holocaust. 

Syria’s chemical weapons attack

            The French Republic concluded this week beyond a doubt that sarin gas was used in the attack on civilians last month and that Syria’s Baathist dictator, Bashar Assad, was responsible for the attack.  Sarin is a prohibited chemical weapon of mass destruction that the Syrian regime was required to give up in 2013 in its agreement brokered by its ally, the Russian Federation.  The chemical attack was launched from a base at which Russian military forces operate. 

The Syrian regime, which is a state sponsor of terrorism, and Russia often target innocent civilians.  The Syrian civil war has killed hundreds of thousands and created five million refugees, the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War.  Syria is also backed by terrorist-sponsor Iran and Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite terrorist organization.

Russian anti-government protests

            There were more protests yesterday across the Russian Federation against the government’s tyranny and kleptocracy.

Turkish authoritarianism

            Turkey’s Islamist authoritarian government is continuing to expand its post-military coup crackdown to the point of establishing a totalitarian Islamic regime.  The Turkish dictator, known as “the Sultan,” is banning certain Internet information websites and television programs he deems “un-Turkish.” 

            Like Venezuela and Russia, Turkey’s tyrant was democratically elected and gradually became authoritarian by seizing more and more powers, through both legal and illegal means, while oppressing the press and the democratic opposition and violating the independence of the judiciary.

Turkish Referendum Establishes an Autocratic Presidential State

           By a slim margin, despite oppression by Turkey’s authoritarian government that precluded a free and fair political campaign, as well as election irregularities, Turkish voters narrowly approved a constitutional referendum that establishes a presidential state that gives its president autocratic powers.

            Turkey was founded after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire that followed the First World War as a secular, parliamentary republic led by a prime minister with a more ceremonial president as head of state.  Under its current president, it had already unofficially turned into an Islamist presidential dictatorship even before the referendum makes it official.

            Members of the opposition have been imprisoned, especially since the authoritarian president’s crackdown which followed the attempted military coup d’etat in July, as I have been posting.  Tens of thousands of people have been sacked or imprisoned, especially in the military, which had long been the guarantor of Turkish democracy, including in the judiciary, as the independence of that branch of government has been eliminated.  There have also been more arrests of journalists and closures of independent media since the coup.  During the campaign, demonstrations were banned.  Turkey, like Venezuela and Russia, is one of the examples of the global rise of authoritarianism among democratically-elected governments.

            The Trump Administration’s United States Department of State issued a mildly-worded statement that, although it cited election irregularities, called upon Turkey’s government and opposition to work together, as if there were no oppression by the Turkish regime, and that Turks were informed about politics in their country through an independent press and the opposition were to free to engage in public debate.  It was even more appalling that President Donald Trump congratulated the Turkish authoritarian president for grabbing additional power through his tainted referendum victory.  

           Trump has demonstrated a pattern of not speaking up for pro-democratic protests, as in Russia and elsewhere and for making false moral equivalences between oppression by foreign dictatorships and supposed American misdeeds.  As a result, the U.S. loses moral credibility and becomes less of a beacon for hope for dissidents and all those who long for or cherish freedom around the world at a time when liberty and representative government are on the defensive against authoritarianism.  

Foreign Digest: Protests in Venezuela, South Africa, Russia and Hungary

           There continue to be anti-corruption and pro-democratic protests in Venezuela, Russia and Hungary, As I had posted earlier this month.  In addition, there have been anti-corruption protests in South Africa. 

Venezuela

            There have been more pro-democratic and anti-corruption protests in Venezuela and they have been more widespread, both geographically and in terms of class, as even the poor are turning against the Socialist regime.   The dictator is confronted everywhere he goes by demonstrators.

South Africa

            There have been major anti-corruption protests against the leftist leader of South Africa.  His African National Congress party, which dominates South African politics, continues to back him, despite his corruption.

Russia

            The opposition leader, released from prison last week, plans more protests in June against the authoritarian kleptocracy of Russian Federation ex-KGB dictator Vladimir Putin.

Hungary

            There continue to be pro-democratic protests against Hungary’s illiberal nationalist government.  

           Protests are often a highly effective way of pressuring authoritarians to moderate or to leave power, as the demonstrations shatter the myth of the dictator’s popularity and encourage further resistance.

Happy Easter!

         
           I wish all of you a happy and blessed Easter!

           Let us remember, during this time when authoritarianism has been increasing, that our rights come from God, not man, and that God is Freedom.  As the truth is being undermined with lies and doubts, let us remember that God is Truth.  And as hatred is condoned and promoted, let us remember that God is Love.

           God bless you.

Eight-Year Blog Visit Report

           Thank you for visiting my blog.  In the eight years that StatCounter has been tracking pageviews of my blog, there have been nearly 6,760 strictly-defined visits to my blog, as there were nearly 360 tracked during the last year, an increase of 20% from the year before.

            Visits do not include my own and are only counted if the particular pageviews are identifiable and if an individual’s pageviews are at least one hour apart.  Obviously artificial visitors are discounted.  As I have noted in previous reports, StatCounter does not track nearly as many pageviews as Blogger, the blog host, but allows for better analysis because of its more specificity.  Even with the increase in visits over the last year tracked by StatCounter, there have been fewer visits tracked by it than a few years ago, when the average had been four times as high, but there has simultaneously been a significant increase of pageviews tracked by Blogger, as people have become more likely to block fuller tracking. 

            StatCounter has tracked a dramatic increase in blog visits that are initiated on my blog homepage in recent years.  Although The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, from April of 2009, with over 1,600 visits, continues to be the most visited page since StatCounter began tracking visits to my blog earlier that month, Useless Cabinet Departments, from March of 2011, was the most popular blog post over the last year, with 30 visits, followed by a second-place tie between The Reverend Monsignor Felix A. Losito, Rest in Peace, from November of that year and Presidential Electors are Supposed to Represent the States and the People from November of 2016, each with 18 visits.  Also attracting at least 15 visits over the last year were Chester Arthur, the Most Underrated U.S. President, from April of 2012 and Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the Constitution Center, from July of 2010, which has been visited over 500 times, the second-most of any post.  As Blogger had tracked, there was a significant increase in traffic to my blog because of the presidential election.  There continue to be visits tracked by StatCounter from across the American Union and from every inhabited continent, including from schools, news media and major companies.

            As authoritarianism has increased around the globe, defending liberty, which is the mission of this blog, has become increasingly necessary.  

           Again, thank you for visiting, especially those of you who are regular visitors, and for following and for the offline comments you give me.  Please visit regularly and follow my blog if you do not already and post comments or contact me offline for feedback or to ask questions or suggest additional topics.  

Foreign Digest: Russia, Belarus, Montenegro, Hong Kong, Turkey, Venezuela

           The rise of authoritarianism and the struggle for liberty is the theme of this post.

Protests in Russia and Belarus

            There were unusually large protests a week ago against the dictatorship in Belarus, while those in Russia at the same time were the largest there in years.  Tens of thousands took to the streets in scores of cities across Russia in unauthorized protests against corruption, after a leading opposition figure was able to disseminate a video about the wealth amassed by Russia’s Prime Minister and his extravagant lifestyle.  The Russian Federation is led by an authoritarian regime that is also a kleptocracy, while most of the Russian people have been denied the benefits of the country’s oil wealth, while Russia is spending money on wars in Ukraine and Syria.  The protests continued in Russia this week on a smaller scale, as the size of the ones the weak before surprised everyone and have bolstered the democratic opposition, despite the arrest of several hundred demonstrators, including the opposition leader. 

            Meanwhile, the European Peoples Parties, a European Parliament group of center-right parties from across Europe, condemned the Russian Federation’s undermining of democratic elections in Europe. 

           

Montenegro’s admission to NATO

            Montenegro has applied for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but its accession is being blocked by an isolationist in the United States Senate.  Montenegro fears Russia, especially after the Russians attempted a coup d’etat in the tiny former Yugoslav state in October on its parliamentary election day, in which Russia had backed pro-Russian parties.  The plot included plans to assassinate the Prime Minister, who was reelected.  The accession of Montenegro into NATO would expand the defense alliances’ perimeter and thus limit Russian advances, particularly through its ally, Serbia, which borders Montenegro. 

Hong Kong’s Pro-Peking Administrator

            The Chinese Communists appointed an administrator who is pro-Peking, despite Chinese promises of autonomy and democracy for the former British territory and despite protests for autonomy and democracy and wins by the democratic opposition in the territory’s administrative council elections.

Turkish Referendum to Increase Presidential Powers

            Turkey, together with Russia and Venezuela, has been among the worst examples of the rise of authoritarianism, especially among democratically-elected governments.  In violation of Turkey’s secular constitution, it has become Islamist under its authoritarian president, even though the Turkish constitution does not establish a presidential state, but one led by the prime minister.  The Turkish President, who is known as the “Sultan,” like the leaders of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and caliphate, has proposed a referendum to increase presidential powers.  He is still using last summer’s attempted coup by the military to conduct purges to limit all opposition.

Venezuela’s Opposition Defends the Separation of Powers

            The Supreme Court had ruled last week in favor of executive rule, stripping the democratically-elected Congress, which is led by the democratic opposition to the authoritarian Socialist regime, of its powers and substituted rule by executive decree in its place.  The democratic opposition had won a two-thirds supermajority in the Venezuelan Congress.  The opposition and the Organization of American States opposed the ruling as a coup d’etat by the dictatorship.  Their pressure was successful in leading the Court to reverse its ruling.  

           The Venezuelan regime has refused to seat some of the members who were elected, thereby denying the opposition their supermajority, which would have provided it with the ability to override presidential vetoes and other powers.  The Socialist dictatorship has also thwarted the opposition’s attempts to free all of Venezuela’s political prisoners and to institute certain democratic reforms and initiate changes in policy.  

Gerrymandering vs. Acceptable Ideological and Partisan Legislative Redistricting

           It has become common lately for all partisan considerations in federal or state legislative redistricting to be labeled as “gerrymandering,” but this misuse of the word fails to make a distinction between what is legislative redistricting that is influenced by an acceptable degree of partisan consideration and gerrymandering, which is the result of excessive partisan motivation.           

Gerrymander is a portmanteau of Elbridge Gerry and salamander.  It refers to a legislative district drawn by the Founding Father that resembled a salamander.  Gerrymandering is the process of drawing legislative districts that are oddly shaped with “tails,” such as possessed by salamanders, corridors or otherwise in such ways that make the districts not compact in order to include as many voters of the same political party of those drawing the boundaries as possible as residents of the district.  Therefore, redistricting those residents who are voters of a particular party into the same district is not necessarily “gerrymandering,” unless the district is thus shaped.

By federal and state law, legislative districts must be contiguous.  It may be desirable that districts be compact, but it makes sense to draw boundaries along lines that follow county or municipal boundaries or that include areas that have a common commercial interests or that share history or culture.  

One of the aspects of culture is political ideology.  Including as many voters as possible who share ideology in a legislative district gives those voters a greater opportunity to elect someone who would represent their political beliefs.  Thus, redistricting along partisan lines can be a form of proportional representation within a state. 

Drawing legislative boundaries along partisan lines, therefore, is not problematic, unless it causes a district not to be compact, to overlap too many political subdivisions or links people who do not share commercial interests, history or other cultural values.  And it is not necessarily gerrymandering.

There is a temptation for lawmakers who have the responsibility to draw legislative boundaries to redistrict them in favor of incumbents generally, which can lead to districts that are gerrymandered in favor of both major parties, or at least drawn in order to provide incumbents with an electoral advantage.  Districts should not be drawn primarily for such temporary considerations and not for self-serving legislators to give themselves or their immediate successors a competitive advantage for the next election.

Gerrymandering should be opposed, but the ideology and partisan affiliations of voters should not be dismissed as they are legitimate factors in drawing legislative boundaries.

Pro-European Conservatives Win the Bulgarian Parliamentary Elections

           A pro-European center-right party that is led by a former Prime Minister defeated the ruling Socialists in Bulgaria’s parliamentary elections today. 

Both parties had pledged to restore economic relations with Russia, with the Socialists going further, to the point of orienting away from Europe.  Therefore, the election results were a defeat for Russia, which had heavily interfered in the election, as it typically does.  The Russian Federation has tended to back far-right nationalist, anti-European parties, but sometimes leftist ones are understandably more sympathetic to Communist ex-KGB Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.  Pro-Russian nationalists lost parliamentary elections in Austria last year and nationalists lost the Dutch parliamentary elections this month.  

The conservatives won a plurality of seats in the Bulgarian parliament and will have to form a coalition with smaller nationalist parties to govern.  The Socialists had also lost the presidential election last year.

Repeal the Federalization of Health Insurance and Replace It with Market-Based State Plans

           Now that the federalization of health insurance, which was approved by a liberal Democratic Congress in 2009 and signed into law by United States President Barack Obama and is also known as “Obamacare,” has still not been repealed, a few thoughts on the issue of government health insurance policy are timely.

            Obamacare federalized health insurance by making it a federal requirement that people purchase health insurance and for large employers to provide coverage for their employees, as well as requiring certain benefits and coverage eligibility and prohibiting the denial of health insurance for pre-existing conditions.  The federalization of health insurance also includes a complex system of regulations. 

            However, health insurance is not generally a federal issue.  Therefore, there must be a transition away from federalized health insurance back toward private health insurance regulated by the States, not a replacement with some less-burdensome federal health insurance regulation regime.  The transition must be done in such a way that people do not lose their health insurance coverage through government actions.  It is not a federal responsibility to provide health care or health insurance or to require health insurance, but the federal government ought not to harm people by causing them to lose coverage through no fault of their own, such as has happened because of Obamacare.

            It is necessary to transition away from federalized health insurance not only because of a lack of constitutional authority for it, but because the system is flawed in every way: it has caused some people to lose the insurance plans they liked, some of whom have not been able to find replacement coverage, has increased health insurance premiums and deductibles, has increased taxes and limited freedom, has come between the doctor-patient relationship by substituting the judgment of bureaucrats for that of doctors, has caused some patients to lose the freedom of choice of medical providers and has increased to the federal budget deficit.  In addition, because employers have been reluctant to employ more than 50 full-time employees, which would meet the threshold for Obamacare, the federalization of health insurance has retarded employment growth and thus economic growth, which, in turn, has reduced tax revenues.  All of these results have come in exchange for minimal positive tradeoffs in terms of improved coverage, as millions of Americans remain uninsured, the supposed problem of which was the excuse for the heavy federal regulation of health insurance.  Obamacare is essentially a wealth redistribution mechanism and a political tool for politicians to provide more largess and control more areas of peoples’ lives.

Most Americans had liked their health insurance before Obamacare.  The many who were not covered either did not believe in health insurance for religious reasons, were wealthy enough not to need it or were young and healthy and calculated the cost of coverage was not worth the expense of the premiums, not because of some economic difficulty or some cruel neglect by government.  Some problems, such as the high cost of medical practice insurance, defensive medicine and overspending by patients, that led to higher healthcare and health insurance costs were unaddressed by Obamacare.  Obamacare also mostly fails to incentivize healthier choices by patients.

In addition to eliminating federal requirements to purchase health insurance and for employers to provide it for their employees, the federal government should decouple health insurance from employment in terms of tax policy.  Health insurance benefits should be taxed like any other income, instead of being the exception, which would inform employees of the value of their health insurance and discourage overspending for unnecessary matters and encourage healthier choices.  It would also be fair to those whose employers do not provide health insurance.  At the least, the U.S. should provide proportional tax breaks for those whose employers do not provide health insurance, as a matter of fairness. 

The federal government should eliminate Medicaid, a federal welfare program, or at least reform it to make it less unappealing to medical care providers and less expensive.  One way to accomplish these goals would be to block grant Medicaid money to the States and give them the flexibility to reform Medicaid, which would at least be less violative of the constitutional principle of federalism.

Federal and state tort reform would address the high cost of healthcare because of the high cost of medical malpractice insurance and discourage defensive medicine. 

With the return of health insurance to the States, free market principles, such as competition and freedom of choice between insurance plans and medical providers, should be followed, as well as the doctor-patient relationship restored. 

Covering patients for their pre-existing conditions is not health insurance.  This provision of Obamacare is not one of its “good” parts, despite its popularity and the phony moral case made for it.  It is a corruption of the language and an abuse of health insurance.  Such patients should not lose coverage for other medical needs, but health insurance companies should not be mandated to cover patients for an illness the patients already had.  Instead, it should be more difficult for people to lose coverage in the first place, which should be more portable generally.  Those left uninsured can be helped in other ways than by destroying health insurance.

Medical providers should provide health care for emergencies, as is legally required, and then bill the patients who do not have health insurance or who lack adequate health insurance.  Perhaps better methods of payment collection could be authorized or made less unappealing, if necessary.

Relatively less-expensive catastrophic health insurance should be encouraged, especially for those who are younger and healthier. 

As was the case more before Obamacare, healthy choices by patients should be incentivized with lower health insurance premiums.  

The federalization of health insurance can be repealed and replaced with market-based state-regulated health insurance plans that address all the problems of health insurance, especially the cost, and that increase the freedom of patients, with less burden on the taxpayers.

Grim Anniversaries in Syria and Ukraine

Syria

            The sixth anniversary of the Syrian civil war was last week.  Of the nearly half-million dead in the rebellion against the Baathist dictatorship of Bashar Assad since 2011, 200,000 civilians have been killed.  They have overwhelmingly been killed by the Assad regime.  Syria’s allies, which include Iran, Hezbollah and

Russia, have added to the civilian death toll.  The Syrian dictatorship and its allies deliberately target civilians, such as the Russian bombing of hospitals.  The Assad regime even uses chemical weapons against civilians.  The Syrian civil war has caused the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War.

            The rebels include moderate Sunni Arab Muslims who oppose dictatorship, as well as Kurds.  The rebels are backed to a slight degree by an American-led coalition.  Al-Qaeda, Islamic State and other violent jihadis have taken advantage of the chaos and lack of adequate support for the non-Islamist rebels. 

Syria’s Assad regime is a state sponsor of terrorism and is Iran’s best ally.  Russia has a base on Syria’s coast. 

Ukraine

            The third Anniversary of the Russian annexation of Crimea was also last week.  Russia seized the territory in 2014 through a covert invasion and a hasty plebiscite conducted without a legitimate campaign after suppressing freedoms and under the duress of Russian arms.  The invasion and annexation, which is not internationally recognized, was in violation of the Russian Federation’s treaty with Ukraine, in which the former agreed to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea.  As in Russia itself, there have been numerous human rights violations in Crimea committed by the Russians. 

In addition to Russians, Crimea was inhabited by Tatars, who are a Turkic people, and Ukrainians.  The Black Sea peninsula had been part of the Ottoman Turkish Empire before being conquered by the Russian Empire and colonized.

Economic sanctions have been imposed by the United States and European Union, among others, on Russia, but there is pressure to lift them, despite no improvement in Russian behavior.  

The Russians, who are led by an ex-KGB dictator, have also been backing pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine, whom they have supported by covert invasion, as in Crimea, with the goal of seizing the territory from Ukraine.  Russia has recently stepped up its offensive operations in Ukraine.

Conservatives Defeat the Populist Far-Right in the Dutch Parliamentary Elections

           The party of the center-right Prime Minister of the Netherlands yesterday defeated the populist anti-establishment far-right party whose leader had associated himself with Donald Trump, as well as with other Russian-backed populist Eurosceptic parties in Europe.  

           The far-right leader has long been concerned about the dangers of militant Islam, but has increasingly expressed xenophobic sentiments and has failed to distinguish between non-militant Muslims, who are the majority within Islam, and violent jihadists. 

The Netherlands’ ruling party is currently in a grand coalition with a center-left party, as well as with centrists and two moderately Eurosceptic Christian conservative parties.  It will have to form another coalition.  The far-right populists gained only a few seats, but more at the expense of the center-left junior coalition member party than the ruling conservatives, as the Prime Minister’s party remains the largest in the Dutch Parliament.  Another center-right party gained more seats than the far-right and is expected to join the government, which will thus be more conservative overall than currently.

Relatively prosperous Netherlands is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member and an ally of the United States as well in the War on Terrorism.

           A wave of populist far-right nationalism, usually backed overtly and covertly by Russia, has swept Europe and the West, most notably in the United States presidential election, which has threatened liberty, representative government, European cohesion, NATO and the global economy.  Since Trump’s election, however, despite strong efforts, such far-right parties have come up short in Austria and the Netherlands and appear to be headed for defeat in the upcoming French presidential election.  The results in the Dutch parliamentary elections suggest that conservatives can defeat the far-right elsewhere, without losing to the left.

European Union Digest: EU Presidential Election, Italian Abortion Objections, Hungarians Protest, United Kingdom EU Separation Plan Approval

European Union Presidential Election

            Conservative Donald Tusk of Poland this week was reelected President of the European Union, with the backing of all of EU member states, except that of his own.  The far-right authoritarian Polish government objected to his reelection.

Italian Abortion Objections

            Abortion is legal in Italy, with relatively few restrictions, but not widely used, as Italian culture is pro-life.  In fact, so many doctors and other healthcare workers conscientiously object on moral grounds to performing abortions that the European Union recently chided Italy for the lack of availability of abortion.  As Italy, like other industrialized states, suffers from a decline of its non-immigrant population, the EU instead ought to be encouraging Italians to reproduce more.

Hungarians Protest the Illiberal Government

            The Hungarian Supreme Court recently ruled this week that a protest against the far-right nativist authoritarian Hungarian Government was constitutional.  The self-described “illiberal” Government had attempted to ban the protest.  Thousands of Hungarians then conducted the protest against Hungary’s ruling party in an exercise of the freedoms of assembly and speech. 

United Kingdom European Union Separation Plan Approval 

           The plan of the Conservative British Government for the separation of the United Kingdom from the European Union by 2018 has been approved by Parliament.  Britons had approved leaving the EU in a referendum in 2016 and Parliament had approved a measure to separate.  

Health Insurance Coverage for Care One Hopes Never to Use vs. for Care One Could Never Need

           As debate has been renewed about repealing the federalization of health insurance (known as “Obamacare”), its defenders have attempted to dismiss the concerns of those of us who have been required to pay higher insurance premiums for health insurance coverage for certain health care services we could never possibly use.  These dismissals are based upon a false understanding of insurance.

            The liberals who defend Obamacare, which was approved by a liberal Democratic Congress and signed into law by liberal Democratic United States President Barack Obama in 2009, insist that insurance is defined by customers paying for services they may never need, as the point of insurance is for the healthy to pay for the coverage of the ill.  They cite examples, such as paying for organ transplant coverage, even though most people never need such a procedure.  This liberal argument is based upon their goal of wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor, forced by government—the federal government—and not upon the true purpose of insurance. 

           Although it is true that the healthy pay for the coverage of the ill, the liberals miss the point that customers pay for insurance in order, at the least, to have peace of mind that, in case of the need for a particular health care service, the costs will be borne by the insurer.  There is no peace of mind to be obtained by paying for a health care service that one could not possibly ever need, as in the case, for example, of a man being having to pay a higher premium for individual insurance for women’s health care services.  Therefore, there is a difference between coverage for health care which one hopes never to use and care that one could never possibly use. 

            As a result of this difference, health insurance coverage does not necessarily work the way liberal defenders of Obamacare insist it does, even apart from the difference on whether one obtains peace of mind through coverage.  Before Obamacare, not only could healthy customers join together in a pool based upon their lower level of risk, which lowers their cost, just as safer drivers pay less for automobile coverage than those who are more accident-prone, but their coverage can exclude those health care services they could never need.  Health insurance was analogous to other kinds of insurance.  For example, one could insure one’s home, but not necessarily one’s jewelry, unless one wanted to pay an additional premium for such additional coverage.  Obamacare, however, has eliminated insurance underwriting and limited choices, which are only based upon whether or not a customer is a smoker.  It thus does not incentivize other healthy behaviors, as the health insurance industry did before, despite Obamacare’s claimed emphasis on “preventative care.”  

           People should be free to purchase only what they need or want, as is the case with nearly everything, except health insurance.  Health insurance ought not to be an exception.  It is not fare to force customers to pay extra for additional health insurance coverage for health care services they could never possibly use.  Health insurance is not wealth redistribution.  Furthermore, healthy people should be rewarded for their behaviors as an incentive to remain healthy and there should be financial disincentives against poor health choices.  

Restore the Holiday of George Washington’s Birthday and Cherish Representative Government

           The 285^th Anniversary of George Washington’s birthday is the occasion for my annual post either on this day or on the federal and state holiday commonly known as “Presidents’ Day” in which I recall Washington’s greatness and call for the restoration of “Washington’s Birthday” as the name of the holiday to honor him and reflect on his legacy of American independence, liberty and representative government under the Constitution of the United States. 

With the focus of the “Presidents’ Day” holiday on the presidency and all of the Presidents, the second Branch of government is elevated above the other two Branches, for which there are no holidays.  Perhaps Constitution Day should be celebrated more, unless Washington’s Birthday is restored.  This emphasis on all the Presidents, in addition to minimizing the greatness of Washington by elevating others as equally accomplished, recalls their mistakes, which overly politicizes the holiday and increases controversy.  Although it is generally worthwhile to debate the merits of past Presidents, a holiday should be a unifying occasion, not a divisive one.  Furthermore, Washington is an example of virtue and patriotism, in contrast particularly to some of his more recent presidential successors, who are not worthy of being equally honored with a “Presidents’ Day” holiday.  Restoring Washington’s Birthday would return the focus of the holiday not only to his presidency, but to his entire life, especially his contribution to the American Revolution and as a Founding Father, as well as to the Constitutional Convention, which he chaired.    

I have observed the last two years how Washington’s leadership offers a timely example.  I was referring to the contrasting weak leadership of his successor as president at the time.  I was specifically referring not to President Barack Obama’s penchant for exceeding executive authority in domestic matters when he was unable to gain support for his proposals from the Legislative Branch, but to his relatively weak defense and foreign policy, despite his continuation of the War on Terrorism and other reasonable policies. 

As an overreaction to this perception of weakness, a plurality of Americans have admired, by contrast, certain foreign tyrants or have even sought such an excessive kind of leadership, that of the authoritarian strongman, for the U.S.  Washington, who deferred to Continental Congress as commanding general of the Continental Army, did not seize power after the war, exercised no authoritarian powers as the first U.S. President and retired after two terms, offers a counter-example of strong leadership without autocratic excess.  Indeed, even though Washington could have obtained dictatorial powers, he rejected authoritarianism, exemplified the rule of law over the rule of man and championed representative government as a safeguard of liberty against tyranny, as he respected the will of the people, as expressed through their chosen representatives.   He nonetheless accomplished extraordinary goals as the First President, but his greatness was in his example, not only of faithfulness to duty to the point of personal sacrifice, but of humility.

May Americans recall Washington especially today and find increased inspiration to cherish liberty, the Constitution of the United States and representative government.  May God bless America.  

Rest in Peace, Norma McCorvey, Michael Novak and Robert Michel

           Three leaders of the cause of liberty or conservatism died last week, Norma McCorvey, Michael Novak and Robert Michel.

Norma McCorvey

Norma McCorvey, who died in Texas at age 69, was the “Jane Roe” of the 1973 Roe v. Wade United States Supreme Court ruling that overturned state anti-abortion laws and required States to legalize abortion.  In later years, however, she converted to Christianity and to the pro-life side. 

Born Norma Nelson in Louisiana in 1947, the family moved to Texas.  There, she married Woody McCorvey at age 16, but left him.  She became pregnant for the third time (her first two children having been given up for adoption) in 1969, at the age of 21.  After being unsuccessful at obtaining a legal or illegal abortion, she was used as a “pawn,” as she later asserted, by attorneys seeking plaintiffs to challenge Texas’ abortion prohibition.  By the time the case, in which she was a plaintiff, but for which she did not attend any of the hearings, was heard by the Supreme Court, McCorvey had given birth and the child was given up for adoption.

In 1994, McCorvy wrote her autobiography, I am Roe, in which she expressed her remorse for participating in the case that legalized abortion.  She converted to Christianity after being befriended by a leading pro-life activist Christian.  The following year, after seeing a poster at the abortion clinic at which she worked about the development of humans from embryos to fetuses, McCorvey realized the immorality of abortion and resigned.  She was baptized and then worked for pro-life organizations and participated in pro-life demonstrations.  That year, she wrote of her conversion to pro-life in her second book, Won by Love.

McCorvey’s conversion meant that all three of the major participants in the legalization and federalization of abortion, had converted to the pro-life cause.  The “Jane Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, the Roe v. Wade companion case, in which the Court defined the permissible reasons for abortion so liberally as to establish abortion on demand as a right, and Bernard Nathanson, the Doctor who had championed legalizing abortion, like McCorvey, also became pro-life advocates.

Michael Novak

Michael Novak was an influential Catholic philosopher and theologian.  The author of over 40 books, who died in Washington, D.C. at the age of 83, was committed to liberty and was best known for his Christian defense of the free market.  Novak was also a journalist and served as a diplomat.

Born in Pennsylvania in 1933, Novak received a philosophy degree from Stonehill College in 1956, a theology degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome two years later and a Master’s Degree in history and the philosophy of religion from Harvard University in 1966.  He was a reporter for the National Catholic Reporter during the Second Vatican Council, during which time he wrote the first of his books.

Novak’s books focused on philosophy, religion, culture, the free market and the politics of democratization.  His most famous work was The Spirit of Capitalism, which was published in 1982.  Among the works he published were novels.  Novak won the Templeton Prize in 1994 for progress in religion.  He taught as a professor at several universities over the decades and was a founding board member of Ave Maria University.  Novak was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a frequent contributor to First Things and National Review.

In the meantime, Novak’s views shifted from liberal to conservative.  The lifelong Democrat, who supported Republican candidates, was appointed United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, in 1981.  Novak served until the following year and was appointed in 1986 by Reagan to lead the U.S. Delegation to the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe.  He served on the board of directors of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, which sought to return the Democratic Party to its anti-Communist and pro-human rights platform from its Leftist one.  Novak was a founding board member of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.  

Novak’s philosophy and theology has been highly influential.

Robert Michel

Robert “Bob” Michel was the longest-serving Republican Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives.  The GOP Minority Leader from 1981-1995, who died in Virginia at the age of 93, was known for his leadership style, characterized by his ability to negotiate compromises through his friendships with majority Democratic members.

Born in 1923 in Illinois, Michel served in the Army from 1943-1946 and was wounded in the Second World War and decorated for valor.  First elected to the House in 1956, Michel served as a U.S. Representative for 38 years, from 1957-1995, a time which coincided with the Republicans’ minority status in the lower chamber of Congress.  As Minority Leader, he successfully supported President Ronald Reagan’s proposed legislation, such as his tax and domestic spending cuts and military buildup.  In Michel’s last two years, together with Republican Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, he was successful in maintaining GOP opposition to President William Jefferson Clinton’s liberal excesses.  Even though he was known for his bipartisanship, Michel compiled a conservative voting record. 

Among Michel’s many awards and honors were the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1994.  

May the legacy of McCorvey, Novak and Michel be respect for the right to life, liberty, the free market, representative government and conservative principles of smaller government, federalism, virtue and a strong defense.

Three Recent Blog Visit Milestones

           One post has now been visited over 500 times, another post has become the fourth-most visited post to my blog, while a third has now become the tenth post to my blog ever to be visited at least 100 times, as tracked by StatCounter.

My post, Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center, from July of 2010, was recently visited for the 500^th time, the second-most of all 858 posts, second only to The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, from April of 2009, which has been visited over 1,600 times.  A post from November of 2011, The Rev. Monsignor Felix A. Losito, Rest in Peace, has been visited over 180 times, the fourth-most number of times a post has been visited.  A post from March of that year, Useless Cabinet Departments, has been visited 100 times.  These figures do not include visits to the homepage or archive of my blog, which means that additional visitors tracked by StatCounter may have read these posts.

Although posts over the last few years have been visited less often than some of the earlier posts, at least until now, there has been a dramatic increase in visits to the blog homepage.

The blog host, Blogger, tracks significantly more pageviews to my blog than StatCounter, but the latter’s greater specificity allows for better analysis.  

Thank you for visiting.

Timely Reflections on Ronald Reagan’s Birthday

           Today is the 106^th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, who was President of the United States from 1981 to 1989. 

Reagan, who had been the leader of the conservative movement before his election as the 40^th President, is credited especially with boosting the economy by cutting taxes, restoring confidence and patriotism, rebuilding the military, and helping to defeat the Soviet Union and ending Communism in Eastern Europe.  The Republican believed in liberty and representative government, revered the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, and was a strong believer in American exceptionalism.  Reagan, who favored free markets, had great confidence in the American people.  He championed faith and morals.

It is timely to note Reagan’s opposition to authoritarianism, protectionism, nativism, bigotry and isolationism.  

May Americans, especially, conservatives and Republicans, reflect on Reagan and be inspired again by Reaganism to continue the American experiment and to defend liberty and representative republican government.   May God bless America!

Foreign Digest: Gambia, Italy, United Kingdom, Turkey

Update: The Defeated Gambian President Has Left Power

            After being defeated in the recent Gambian presidential elections, Gambia’s longtime President, who had refused to accept the results of the election, has left power.  He made the decision after much international pressure was applied, including a military invasion by neighboring Senegal and the forces of the West African regional organization.  The election winner has returned from exile to take power.  It is hoped that Gambia will remain peaceful and will return to representative government and enjoy liberty.

Italy: Upholding Family Values; the Supreme Court Affirms the Election Law

            The European Court of Human Rights ruled Italy did not violate the rights of a couple who claimed parental rights over a child with whom they had no biological ties who was born of a surrogate mother.  The ruling also prevented the recording of the couples’ names as the parents on the child’s birth certificate.  The Court ruled that children have a right to biological parents. 

            The Constitutional Court upheld the parliamentary voting law, except for the runoff provision, maintaining the large bonus of seats in Parliament for any party bloc that received at least 40% of the votes, giving that party a majority, enabling it to form a government.  The law maintains differences between how members of the upper and lower chambers are elected.  Parliament may decide to amend the law before elections are held, which the populist party, who leads in the polls, prefer to be held now, as the law could enable them to attain a parliamentary majority without having to from any coalition government with any other party.  Other major parties prefer to vote in a few months, only after amending the law to reduce the bonus of parliamentary seats for the leading party to necessitate the formation of a coalition government, instead of one led by a party with only a plurality of popular support.

United Kingdom: Updates on the European Union Exit

            The British economy has returned to the level of economic growth the United Kingdom had been enjoying before the referendum in June of last year was approved to leave the European Union, which is contrary to the predictions of supporters of remaining in the EU that the UK’s economy would suffer if the referendum passed.

The British Supreme Court ruled that a parliamentary vote was required to require the withdrawal.  The conservative British Prime Minister has announced plans to negotiate the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. 

Turkey: Updates on the Turkish Government’s Crackdown

            The Supreme Court of Greece has ruled in favor of the asylum requests of eight Turkish servicemen who defected after the failed military coup in Turkey.  The authoritarian Islamist Turkish Government had requested their extradition.  

           An international group of Nobel Prize for Literature winners has written a letter sharply criticizing the Turkish Government for detaining over 100 writers and journalists as political prisoners as part of its post-coup crackdown on all dissent.  Mario Vargas Llosa of Peru is the most famous of the group.

The 44th Annual March for Life

           The 44^th Annual March for Life was held in Washington, D.C. on Friday, as it has every year since the 1973 Roe v. Wade United States Supreme Court decision legalized abortion throughout the States.  The march was attended by hundreds of thousands. 

In addition, there were pro-life demonstrations in other American cities, as usual. 

            The theme of this year’s March for Life was “the Power of One,” which emphasized how even one person can change the course of history, such as toward the promotion of the right to life.

            There was some optimism among pro-life activists because of the increase in pro-life majorities in Congress and in most of the States, which reflect public support for greater restrictions on abortion, such as have been enacted by the federal and state governments.  There is hope especially of an overturning of Roe v. Wade.  

However, there is uncertainty as to the pro-life commitment of Donald Trump.  The march was attended by Vice President Mike Pence, a Republican, the first time a Vice President has attended, but media reports that he was the highest-ranking officer of the Administration were misleading, as a vice president is, as President of the Senate, not a member of the Administration.  His appearance was thus only as an unofficial representative of the President.  Past Republican Presidents have addressed the March for Life by audio message, as did Pope Francis.

            Trump’s recent, partial conversion to the pro-life cause is suspect, like that of his other policy position changes, because he lacks credibility, having repeatedly cheated his spouses, business investors and contractors.  Furthermore, he supports crimes against humanity and war crimes, such as the targeted slaughter by Syria and Russia of civilians, including even the deliberate bombing of hospitals—positions that are not consistent with a pro-life ideology.  Even though the March for Life coincided with Holocaust Remembrance Day, Trump issued an anti-life executive order the same night to exclude selectively refugees, including permanent residents reentering American territory, from certain predominately-Muslim countries from which immigrants and refugees are not relatively a significant threat for terrorism.  President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, had excluded refugees attempting to flee the Nazi German Holocaust who were subsequently massacred.  Therefore, the pro-life cause, risks being set back by being associated with Trump’s misogyny instead of support for women, with hate, instead of love, and with fascism instead of the most basic liberty of the right to life and the dignity of all human beings, no matter how small.  

           The defense of the right to life has made progress over the decades, but risks disaster with victory in sight.  Supporters of the right to life will have to advance the pro-life cause by emphasizing love and freedom even more than before, instead of being too closely tied to or dependent upon any politician or political party.  

The “Never Trump” Conservative Movement Must Transition to “Resist Trump”

           Although the “Never Trump” movement was not successful in preventing Donald J. Trump from being inaugurated President of the United States of America, it was successful in some respects and remains at the vanguard of liberty and representative government.  Already having been vindicated before Trump is even sworn into office, it is now well-positioned to lead the resistance to authoritarianism and to promote good government.

            The Never Trump efforts afforded an opportunity for principled constitutional conservatives to preserve their honor and integrity by taking a public stand against Trump and to force those who favored him to make a public stand in support of him, as well as to allow many on the center-right who opposed Trump to vote for a principled conservative without having to violate their consciences.  Moreover, the Never Trump movement accomplished two more significant political goals. 

            The first goal the Never Trump movement was successful in achieving was in drawing a clear distinction between Trumpism (i.e. populism, protectionism, nativism/white nationalism, isolationism, authoritarianism) and conservatism.  Related to making this ideological distinction was maintaining consistency between conservative beliefs and practices through adherence to the conservative belief that public servants must be of good character by opposing a candidate who was morally unfit.

            The second political achievement of the Never Trump efforts was to deny Trump a popular mandate.  Most Republicans in the GOP primaries and caucuses did not vote for him, there were an unusually-high number of votes from Convention Delegates for other candidates, a large majority of votes in the General Election were not for the Republican and Trump-Pence Electors and even some of those Electors who were elected either resigned to avoid voting for him or did not vote for him.  This lack of popular support continues to be observable in public opinion polls.  Although poll responses are not nearly as significant as votes, they are important to Trump, a narcissist who craves public adulation, as well as to Republican members of Congress, as Trump’s unpopularity may encourage them to check and balance the Chief Executive to resist autocracy and harmful policies.

            The efforts of Never Trump conservatives did not undermine the legitimacy of the presidential election, which does not require majority support.  It was instead the deception, intimidation and foreign interference that made Trump’s election illegitimate.  The efforts of those on the center-right and others to oppose Trump were partly a reaction against Trump’s personal and political fraud, but would have been justifiable even his election had been legitimate.  The illegitimacy of his presidency only provides validation for the resistance to him, in addition to his lack of qualifications and heterodox policies.

            It is prudent to pray for Trump, to encourage him to make good decisions, to discourage him from making bad ones and to oppose harmful policies.  However, it is necessary to avoid normalizing or legitimizing his illegitimate presidency or his aberrant behaviors and undemocratic policies.  The arguments being made by some conservative and Republicans that everyone should “give him the benefit of the doubt,” “wait and see,” and “give him a chance” sound like the arguments of liberal Democrats who were defending Bill Clinton, but the risks to the Republic are too great.  It is always prudent to oppose bad government and to be vigilant for liberty and representative government, but it is especially necessary under Trump to be vigilant against authoritarianism and its evil daughter, kleptocracy, because the warning signs for both have been abundant.  Furthermore, it is vital to thwart the Russian-fostered coup d’etat that has resulted in the election and inauguration as President of the United States of the Communist Russian Federation’s preferred candidate by denying the Russians the fruit of this unprecedented interference in the election.  It is better to be too vigilant than not to be vigilant enough.  If the Republic is saved, it will have been through deterrence by the resistance to Trump.

            Conservatives should not let down their guard because they may favor some of Trump’s policies.  Indeed, it is easy to overlook authoritarianism while one agrees with the policies of the authoritarian.  It would be wise for conservatives to consider that demagogues do popular things, or at least things that are popular among the targeted audience of their demagogy, and to remember that even tyrants do some good things like making the trains run on time.  Demagogues and tyrants must do these things to maintain popular support, but these things cannot legitimize their autocracy.  Even liberal Democratic Presidents do some good things, either because of sharing universal principles, agreeing with conservatives on particular issues or especially because of being forced to compromise with a conservative Republican-led Legislative Branch. 

Conservatives should also consider that whatever good Trump does could have been accomplished by nominating one of the other leading Republican presidential candidates, who would likely have defeated the liberal Democratic nominee—without having to rely upon deception, intimidation and foreign interference to be elected President.  And conservative policies could have been implemented without authoritarianism.  There is a risk that whatever conservative things an authoritarian Trump does, even if achieved democratically, would later be associated with fascism by the Left and be undone by liberals if they return to power immediately after him.  Therefore, only principled support for any conservative policy from the center-right opposition to him could spare such policies from being thrown out by liberals, along with his usurpations.  Such support from the conservative opposition to Trump would likely be essential for those particular proposals to be approved by Congress. 

As Trump and his supporters dismiss the arguments of the Left, only the principled center-right opposition to Trump can effectively lead the American resistance to authoritarianism.  Support for or opposition to Republican members of Congress from the conservative opposition to Trump would be more effective in encouraging the Legislative Branch, in which they are the majority, to check and balance him, than would opposition from liberal Democrats alone.  It is also imperative that the center-right not concede the resistance to Trump to the Left, lest conservatives be left out of any post-authoritarian governance. 

Conservatives can and must save the Republic by defending liberty and representative government through resistance to Trump’s authoritarian proclivities and by defending American independence through opposition to pro-Russian Federation policies.  In an upcoming post, I shall advise how effectively to resist authoritarianism and kleptocracy.    

Conservatives Should Not Trust in Safeguards against Authoritarianism If They Are Unwilling to Use Them

           Some conservatives who are focused on those issues with which they believe Donald J. Trump agrees with them are ignoring the warning signs of authoritarianism by rationalizing that he would be held in check by various safeguards after he is sworn into office as the President of the United States.  Such safeguards against authoritarianism are necessary for the protection of liberty, but the political will necessary for their effectiveness has been lacking, even among many conservatives and Republicans.

These conservatives’ trust in moral, ethical, political and even constitutional safeguards is misplaced, not only because Trump respects none of these, but because these safeguards are only effective if those with the authority to hold the Chief Executive accountable are courageous enough to make use of these safeguards.  However, these same conservatives heretofore have opposed every safeguard out of ignorance, expedience, or cowardice.  Now, as I detailed in my last post, there is only one constitutional safeguard remaining before Inauguration Day on January 20, that of Congressional objection on January 6 to the counting of the electoral votes for Trump because of their fraudulent election through deception, intimidation, ballot access denial and foreign influence.

Many conservatives and Republicans who supported Trump, or at least acquiesced to him, opposed a contested Republican Convention or freeing the Convention Delegates to exercise their judgment and to vote their consciences.  They opposed the imposition of requirements such as the disclosure by candidates to release their federal tax returns or to pledge to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest by divesting themselves adequately in order to be nominated for President.  The proposal to allow the Delegates to choose the vice presidential nominee themselves was similarly rejected.  After the Convention, these same conservatives and Republicans opposed replacing the presidential nominee and the independent Republican presidential candidacy.  After the General Election for the presidential and vice presidential Electors, they opposed freeing the Electoral College to fulfill its constitutional duty to exercise its best judgment in good conscience. 

Each of these safeguards were dismissed by these conservatives and Republicans who supported Trump, oftentimes as if these safeguards were novel or radical even though several were common practices or at least have been used when necessary.  These protections against populism and demagoguery were opposed on the grounds that they would be anti-democratic, despite the opposition of the Founding Fathers of the Republic and of the Republican Party to democracy precisely because of their fear of populism and demagoguery, the safeguards against which are necessarily anti-democratic.  These safeguards also exist to prevent someone not in agreement with the party from being nominated, someone unfit from being nominated or elected, and from foreign interference from being elected.  They exist also to prevent kind of demagoguery and authoritarianism evident in Trump.  Those of us conservatives and Republicans who courageously spoke out in favor of using these safeguards were insulted or threatened—in a Trump-inspired style of authoritarianism—as illegitimate excuses were made in every case as to why an unfit demagogue with authoritarian proclivities supported by a hostile foreign state should be nominated and elected.

The opposition by conservatives and Republicans to using any of these safeguards—on the grounds they are unnecessary because, once in power, Trump will be held in check by safeguards is unconvincing rationalization and seems contradictory and foolish, for if a presidential candidate cannot be checked, it will be even harder once he has all the powers of the presidency.  Because of partisanship or too much focus on defeating the liberals while allowing the Communist Russian Federation to achieve its goals at the expense of American interests by effectively carrying out a coup d’etat, these conservatives and Republicans will use the same illegitimate excuses then, that holding Trump in check is contrary to the will people who voted for him or advantageous to the Left, etc.—excuses they would rightly reject as contrary to liberty if the liberal Democrats were in office and similarly abusing their power.  Authoritarians and hostile foreign intelligence services use such beliefs and divisions to their advantage in order to advance toward their goals. 

Whatever conservative policies Trump might implement are secondary to the loss of representative government and liberty and that these policies, which could have been implemented by someone else or without authoritarian methods, would afterward be tainted as “fascist” in any post-authoritarian restoration of liberty.

With the warning signs abundant and obvious that Trump intends to govern as an authoritarian and as an asset of the Russian intelligence services, it is vital that conservatives and Republicans avail themselves of every legitimate means of resistance to authoritarianism, including the fail-safe of Congressional objection tomorrow to the counting of Trump’s Electors.  Conservatives and Republicans should unite, not only with other conservatives and Republicans, but all those who recognize the danger, against Russian interference and authoritarianism to avoid regretting their failure to defend the United States and liberty and to avoid ceding the resistance to the Left and, therefore, being left out of sharing in the post-authoritarian governance. 

  

There are many of us conservatives and Republicans who have held fast to our principles and our numbers are growing as the danger becomes clearer.  Let us make our stand for independence, representative government and liberty for the United States of America, “the last best hope of earth.”

The United States Congress Should Object to the Votes of Trump-Pence Electors

           The United States Congress should object to the certification of the election of the Republican and Trump-Pence Electors on January 6 when it convenes to count the votes of the Electoral College.

            The Twelfth Amendment grants power to Congress to count the votes, which effectively means the certification of the election of the Electors.  Congress has an implied power, which it has used many times, to object to the election of the Electors.   

There are ample grounds to object to the election of the Republican Electors for Donald J. Trump and Michael Pence for President and Vice President, respectively, such as deception, intimidation and ballot access denial that rendered fraudulent the results of the General Election for Electors on November 8, but the most significant was foreign interference.  In addition, there was bribery and intimidation of the Electors by the Republican Party and the Trump campaign.  Each of these measures alone may have altered the outcome of the election, but collectively have swayed it undoubtedly.

As I have posted previously, the deception came in many forms, such as Trump’s false portrayal of himself as a successful businessman, to his myriad lies, half-truths and false statements.  His campaign and supporters also widely spread fabrications and other false statements favorable to his candidacy and unfavorable to opponents and critics.  In addition to Russian disinformation, which Trump and his supporters eagerly disseminated, there was a massive dissemination of fake news and generated by Trump supporters to his benefit. 

Like the deception, the intimidation also took various forms and was aimed at many targets.  Continuing to the present, those who criticize Trump typically face the threat of lawsuits, public ridicule and professional disadvantage Death threats have become normalized.  The notorious con man is known to employ private investigators, the fear of which the selective Russian hacking and leaking on his behalf only reinforced.  There was not only an unusual degree of physical violence at his rallies, but some critics were even attacked with seizure-inducing means via the Internet.  Many of Trump’s business and sexual assault victims were afraid to speak out or to sue him for fear of legal retaliation and a public backlash.  Reporters were afraid to lose access or, like other commentators, to lose ratings for reporting or expressing the truth.  Other candidates for the Republican nomination were afraid to criticize him or to withhold their endorsements of him after he was nominated.  Many who considered seeking election as independents were similarly intimidated.  GOP Convention Delegates were threatened by Republican officials with political retribution and worse for supporting the Delegates’ freedom to vote their consciences.  Republican members of Congress were afraid to speak out against Trump, let alone withhold their endorsements of him.  The climate of fear created by Trump and his supporters, typical for the rise of an authoritarian, was extraordinary in the history of American presidential elections and carried over to the vote of the Electoral College.

The ballot access denial to independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin, who received nearly 706,000 votes across the Union, despite his name appearing on the ballot in only 11 States, was most noticeable in Florida, where he was nominated by the State’s largest third party, the Florida Independent Party, but removed from the ballot illegally by the office of Florida’s Trump-supporting Governor.  The 29 Trump-Pence Electors won the State by only around 2% of the vote.  As I noted in my last post, nearly 8 million Americans voted for other candidates, while another 2 million skipped the top of the ballot.  These unusually-high numbers suggest many votes would have been cast for other preferred candidates besides the Democratic and Republican nominees in Florida, as elsewhere.  Although the denial of ballot access tainted the election in many States and overall, the best grounds for Congress to object to the election of Electors would be to those of Florida.

The foreign interference in the election is still being investigated fully by the Administration, while Congress is about to being its own investigations.  Because the degree of foreign interference is not fully understood, Congress should conduct its own investigation, as it has in past presidential elections and routinely does for contests for congressional seats, until it is fully informed and can determine either that the interference did sway the outcome of the election, and pursue the appropriate remedy of objecting to the election of Electors who were not duly elected, or that the election results were not swayed, which would restore confidence in the result.  From what is known from various sources, the Russian Federation, led by a hostile, tyrannical Communist KGB agent, not only hacked and leaked information, but engaged in a massive propaganda and disinformation campaign to help elect Trump.  Their hacking of Democratic e-mails and leaking of such information, some of which could have been forged, which is a typical Russian spycraft, was designed particularly to discourage supporters of Bernie Sanders from voting for the Democratic nominee, as well as to embarrass her and her party, but the “active measures,” as the Soviet/Russian KGB calls their technique, of propaganda and disinformation was probably even more significant.  These ranged from overt propaganda from Russian state media to the dissemination of propaganda and lies through anonymous Russian social media account-holders posing as Americans opposed to the Democratic nominee or supporting Trump.  These accounts, the number of which also made Trump seem much more popular than he was, helped spread quickly any information favorable to Trump and unfavorable to his opponents and critics, whether true or not.  Although it is unlikely the Russians, who did hack several state election offices, were successful in hacking voting machines, an audit of the paper records of those machines that produce paper records should prove or disprove this theory.  Regardless, the Russians effectively will have pulled off a coup d’etat against the U.S. by helping to elect their preferred candidate, unless Congress exercises its constitutional authority.

Despite the deception, intimidation, ballot access denial and foreign interference, Trump barely succeeded in electing a majority of Electors.  If the Electoral College were to have fulfilled its constitutional duty to exercise its best judgment in good conscience to avoid the election of someone unfit, demagogic and under foreign interference, Trump would not have received a majority of the votes of that body.  The Republican Party felt compelled to bribe some of the Electors with dinners while the GOP and the Trump campaign intimidated the others with threats of political retribution, while Trump supporters threatened violence against the one Republican Elector who courageously announced beforehand his intention not to vote for Trump.  Two other GOP Electors who could not vote for Trump in good conscience were pressured to resign. 

If Congress objects to the election of Trump’s electoral votes until it can conduct a full investigation, at least from the closest States, where the outcome was surely swayed by deception, intimidation, ballot access denial and foreign interference, no candidate would have a majority of the electoral votes.  Then, the House of Representatives, voting by state delegation, may choose from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.  As a compromise, they may elect Colin Powell, as he received the third most electoral votes.  If there is still no majority for any candidate by January 20, (Inauguration Day), then the current Vice President shall act as President until a majority is attained.  

Congressional objection to Trump’s electoral votes would be the last constitutional safeguard before Inauguration Day against an authoritarian foreign agent taking office as the President of the United States of America.