This is exactly the scenario envisioned by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68, and the Electoral College served as a check on California's massive foolishness, exactly as it was supposed to do. It was not designed to have electors overrule the voters. It was designed so one state couldn't push around all the other states with a reckless act of idiocy.

http://www.hermancain.com/the-left-is-getting-federalist-68-totally-wrong

The left is getting Federalist 68 totally wrong

The Electoral College is designed to prevent one big, stupid state (ahem . . . California) from sticking the rest of us with a total fraud.

The so-called "Hamilton electors" were a total failure yesterday, as you certainly know by now. They fell 35 short of the 37 Republican electors they needed to persuade to deny Donald Trump the presidency. In fact, more Democrat voters rejected Hillary Clinton than there were Republican electors who refused to vote for Trump.

The whole thing was clearly going nowhere from the beginning, and didn't deserve the attention it got from the media. But the Hamilton electors didn't only fail to stop Trump. They also failed miserably in their understanding of Alexander Hamilton's writing in Federalist 68, which they offered as their rationale for pleading with electors to defeat Trump.

The Hamilton electors argued that the purpose of the Electoral College, as Hamilton discussed in Federalist 68, was to serve as a safeguard against electing a candidate with "talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity." In other words, they claimed, Federalist 68 intended for electors to exercise their wisdom and reject a charlatan candidate who managed to fool the voters.

And of course, these people insisted that Trump was such a candidate.

But they didn't read Federalist 68 carefully enough. Take a look, especially to the part I've put in bold:

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

The scenario Hamilton lays out here does not involve electors rejecting the choice the people made in an election. Rather, it speaks to what happens when a charlatan candidate fools the voters in one state. The purpose of the Electoral College is to give the other states a chance to serve as a check on the one state that was fooled. In other words, one complete fraud manages to fool the people of one large state - racking up a large margin of victory in that state. When the nation was founded, New York or Virginia could easily have been that state. There were only 13 states, and if one large state made a bad decision by an overwhelming margin, there might not have been enough votes in the other states to counteract it.

The purpose of the Electoral College was to give the smaller states more leeway in the event something like that happened. The charlatan fraud might take New York, but if the other states did not concur, he might not win enough electoral votes to take the election, even if he won the popular vote. Contrary to the current left-wing view that this is a bug of the Electoral College system, it's actually a feature. This is exactly how it's supposed to work.

So let's look at what happened in this year's election. As it turns out, we did have one candidate win one very large state by an overwhelming margin - such an overwhelming margin that it resulted in a popular vote pluraity (although not a majority) nationwide. And this candidate also happened to be a charlatan and a fraud - someone very much not wanted in the White House by the rest of the country. This candidate, of course, was Hillary Clinton. If winning a popular vote plurality had been enough to win the presidency, then California would have just succeeded at sticking the rest of the country with Hillary, even though 30 states did not want her, and Trump "won the popular vote" in the other 49 states combined.

This is exactly the scenario envisioned by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68, and the Electoral College served as a check on California's massive foolishness, exactly as it was supposed to do. It was not designed to have electors overrule the voters. It was designed so one state couldn't push around all the other states with a reckless act of idiocy.

Like electing Hillary Clinton. Nice job, Electoral College. Nice job, Alexander Hamilton.

I'm glad I had the opportunity to explain this to you liberals who've been getting Federalist 68 so abysmally wrong these past few days.

Get Dan's three-part series of Christian spiritual thrillers! And follow all of Dan's work by liking his page on Facebook.

Sent from my iPhone

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/08/why-conservatives-lost-part-1-the-big-picture

WHY CONSERVATIVES LOST: PART 1 — THE BIG PICTURE

Note: This is the first of a seven-part series examining why conservatism lost the country so that we can learn the lessons necessary to win the future. Come, let us reason together. 

Here are some of the lies we love to tell one another at conferences, on social media haunts, and at conventions to make ourselves feel better about the state of things:

• This is still a right-of-center country. That’s true to some extent, but the problem is the center has moved decidedly to the left. Today’s Republicans are mostly yesterday’s Democrats. Republican primary voters in Kansas — one of the reddest states in the country — just tossed out Congressman Tim Huelskamp and his 91 percent Liberty Score® here at Conservative Review, because what they want even more from government than their God-given rights are handouts. Republicans are either rallying to or cowering away from the Rainbow Jihad. No current member of GOP congressional leadership in either chamber has a Liberty Score® higher than a D. Furthermore, Speaker Paul Ryan (53%) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (42%), each have Fs.   

• We can rally the “silent majority.” We rightfully mock liberals for not moving on from bygone Watergate references, yet this phrase we toss around to comfort ourselves ironically comes from the same era — originally credited to Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon’s vice president. There is no silent majority in America anymore. There apparently is an angry, populist, nationalist “silent plurality,” which Donald Trump tapped into to win the nomination. But other than love of country and a high regard for national sovereignty, there is little to nothing conservative about that movement. 

• We have a promising bench of emerging, principled conservatives. Anyone still believing this paid no attention to the recent presidential primary or never looked at the Liberty scorecard here at CR. We have the largest Republican majority on Capitol Hill since before the Great Depression; however, of the 301 Republicans currently in office, only 40 of them have A or B Liberty scores. And that’s with a Democrat in the White House. That means only 13 percent of the Republicans elected in 2014 have voted the right way more often than not when it was easy to build a principled resume. Just look at my home state of Iowa, which sent two newcomers to Washington in the last election. But already Senator Joni Ernst (62%) and Congressman David Young (43%) have disappointing Liberty scores. 

The inconvenient truth is we have lost everything. We have an established beachhead exactly nowhere. We are not advancing on any front anywhere. Our best “victories” are stopping the Left from going places that even a decade ago would’ve been unthinkable in the political mainstream (e.g., North Carolina bathroom fight, Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case).

The actual data and election results have been telling us for quite some time — are simply not true. We are ineffective. We move almost no public policy. 

It's time — past time — we on the Right have a serious and adult conversation among ourselves about where the country is headed and our place in that.

The country is in a meltdown on every front. Super majorities of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Yet as of today, President Obama's approval rating is approaching 60 percent. And if he were up for re-election this year, he would be a heavy favorite to win.

Then there's Hillary Clinton, whom a majority of Americans don't like or trust. Yet she's polling better at this point than Obama was four years ago. The Republican nominee spent more time at his convention currying favor with Bernie Sanders’ socialist voters than talking about conservatism or the Constitution. Even the Libertarian Party, which had a real chance to make inroads with conservatives this year, nominated two liberal, former Republican governors as its ticket — and neither candidate has any regard for the Bill of Rights whatsoever. 

However, we keep convincing ourselves that with every cop killing, terrorist attack, and new scandal "this will be the moment that will turn the election" and create a wave. But no wave is forthcoming, no matter how discouraged people become. True, the sham that is the Trump candidacy is a factor here, and it’s increasingly clear people just don't see him as presidential material no matter what happens. That may explain what is going to happen this cycle.

But our problems are far more systemic than Trump. His sham candidacy is a symptom of our problems, not the source of them. 

We've lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. And only twice in almost half a century has a non-incumbent Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote (1968,1980). I was seven when that last happened. The Star Wars trilogy hadn't been completed yet. Nobody had heard of Indiana Jones. Disco was still popular. Most of America didn't even have cable television. That's how long ago it was.

It is time to stop lying to ourselves. To stop convincing ourselves that it doesn't matter how terrible the GOP nominee is, because we can actually win elections on how bad the Democrats are. And all the other sweet nothings we say to each other — the actual data and election results have been telling us for quite some time — are simply not true. We are ineffective. We move almost no public policy. And now even corporate America, a key ally in the Reagan era, no longer funds our causes but is the man-at-arms for the progressive Left.

I just turned 43. I have three children — 15, 11, and 9. By the time 2020 rolls around, one of them will be out of my house and on her own. Given that perspective, I am fully committed to the conservative cause regardless of how discouraging things seem. There's simply too much at stake for our children and grandchildren to turn back now.  

Nonetheless, I don't want to be sitting here 20 years from now, perhaps on the edge of retirement, thinking everything I did for that cause was for naught. A man I greatly admire once told me: "You're fighting the same battles we fought 40 years ago." I know he's trying to encourage me to take the long view, but with all due respect to him, I don't want to spend 40 years fighting the same war he did.

I'd like to win the war.

This is not a happy tale, for sure. But we can't fix what's wrong unless we're willing to be truly honest about where we are. Hence, this series I’m writing over this next seven weeks. If you’d like to win the war as well, I invite you to join me for a long, overdue, and sober assessment of our movement in the hopes of learning the tough, but necessary, lessons. 

You don’t know where you’re going until you know where you’ve been. 

http://zpolitics.com/your-handy-guide-to-georgias-religious-freedom-bills/

YOUR HANDY GUIDE TO GEORGIA’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BILLS

As of Friday, seven religious liberty bills have been introduced in the legislature, meaning that members of the Georgia General Assembly are debating on which religious freedom proposals are best for Georgians. As a result, we now have an overabundance of legislation of the “alphabet soup” variety with acronyms like RFRA and FADA, and names like the Pastor Protection Act and the Georgia Students Religious Liberties Act.

Even the casual observer of Georgia politics may not have the time to wade through this sea of legalese gobbledygook, but fear not, stalwart zpolitics reader – we have read these pieces of legislation for you! (Yes, you may thank us later.)

Below you’ll find a quick overview of all seven religious freedom-related bills in the Georgia General Assembly.

SB 129 – “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA); Sponsor: Sen. Josh McKoon (R-Columbus)

Much notoriety, media coverage, and controversy surrounds SB 129, partially due to its embattled Senate sponsor and his impassioned defense of the bill on social media. Called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), this was the original religious freedom bill from which all others spawned. To understand the others, it’s helpful to understand this one.

Based on a 1993 federal law of the same name, this bill seeks to provide Georgians with the same protections on the state level, which the federal law does not cover. The essence of the law is that it is meant to protect against government overreach, establishing that the government “should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.”

Senator McKoon has insisted that SB 129 would not lead to discrimination of any kind, but opponents claim that it will open the door for “legalized discrimination” against LGBT Georgians.

Cue controversy.

HB 837 – “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA); Sponsor: Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth)

HB 837 is also entitled “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” However, don’t confuse these three pages of fun with SB 129 (the other, more well-known RFRA bill sponsored by Senator McKoon).  The basics are all here, though.

The main difference between Rep. Setzler’s version and Senator McKoon’s is the language. HB 837 says that the federal statute would apply to state and local governments, while SB 129 supposedly leaves more room for interpretation. Nothing much else to see here, moving right along.

HB 757 – “The Pastor Protection Act;” Sponsor: Rep. Kevin Tanner (R-Dawsonville)

Shakespeare once wrote that brevity is the soul of wit, and in just over 2 pages (a paragraph, really), the “Pastor Protection Act” is very brief. With the support of House Speaker David Ralston (R- Blue Ridge), HB 757 would protect a religious institution or organization from participating in religious or matrimonial services that violate their free exercise of religion under the 1^st Amendment of the US Constitution. Easy peasy.

HB 756 – Sponsor: Rep. Kevin Tanner (R-Dawsonville)

Also sponsored by Representative Tanner, sans-snappy title, HB 756 is a short read, but takes full advantage of the page space in both pages of the legislation. In a nutshell, his bill would allow private business owners the ability to deny goods or services for a “matrimonial ceremony” based on a religious belief.

SB 284 – “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA); Sponsor: Sen. Greg Kirk (R- Americus)

SB 284, also known as the “First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia,” seeks “to prohibit discriminatory action against a person who believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such marriage.”

Translation: it would protect individuals from performing actions that violate their religious beliefs. For that reason, FADA is also referred to as the “Kim Davis bill”.

HB 816 – “Georgia Student Religious Liberties Act;” Sponsor: Rep. Billy Mitchell (D- Stone Mountain)

Not only the longest of the aforementioned bills, clocking in at 8 pages, HB 816 is also the combo breaker for being sponsored by a Democrat.

Known as the “Georgia Student Religious Liberties Act,” HB 816 is basically the “let God back into the classroom” bill of 2016. It would protect students from penalty should they exercise religious expression in class, assignments, graduation, and other school activities.

HB 870 – Sponsor: Rep. Brian Strickland (R- McDonough)

While HB 816 aims to protect religious expression in schools, HB 870 would defend those freedoms on the field. The bill was introduced in response to a 2015 controversy in which a track championship winner was disqualified because he wore a headband with a bible verse. Additionally, it also seeks to protect small faith-based schools from being excluded from interschool play by public schools.

So there you have it, the zpolitics handy pocket guide to the plethora of religious liberty legislation currently floating around under the Gold Dome. 2016 will be a very interesting session to watch, especially as all these different religious freedom recipes coalesce and their respective cooks try to get to the table before the others.

Sent from my iPhone