Saturday, June 25, 2022

Our Incredible Shrinking Democracy


Friends, don't miss out on my latest article, published by World Net Daily.  It's a slightly altered version of my reflections on the fallout from the Dobbs decision that I posted yesterday.  Once again, you get to read my honeyed words for a second time!  But then I assume you read and re-read my posts as a matter of course, so steady as she goes!  Enjoy.


In other news, is one poll indicative of the likely results of the November midterm elections?  Probably not, but overall we see no signs of slippage in terms of Republican strength, despite the ongoing circus of the January 6th hearings and the pearl-clutching re: Roe v. Wade.  My takeaway: the Dems' efforts to change the subject and thus alter the trajectory of the midterms have failed, are failing, and are likely to keep failing indefinitely.


  1. The hearings are becoming more and more damning of Trump, and is building a good case (esp. fraud) in terms of charging him.

    As for Roe, it was just decided in Friday, so the impact will take a little while to see.

    Remember Leon Lett. You have to actually cross the goal line to get the touchdown. You never know when a Don Beebe will come out of nowhere to prevent the score.

    1. Having more wet dreams about Trump these days, are we Rod?

  2. Dr. Waddy et al from Jack: Rod, you must be a Bills or Cowboys fan to recall that dark moment! Its not a strong analogy but since my Bills were so hopelessly behind then, I thank your use of it. Let the American left be similarly be similarly sloughed!

  3. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Well, Scotus's decrees can be enforced by a willing Executive branch, as they were in 1957 and 1962 and '63. Of course this Executive branch will refuse its duty to enforce, contrary to
    what Eisenhower and Kennedy did! The solution? First, surround and corral it with a Congressional elected barrier to its fiat in 2022. Then turn up the heat! Also: Jan.6 as an electoral issue in 2020? Only if you completely disregard Dem encouragment of the murderous, traitorous 2020 leftist hurly burly!And now?! The left persists in its presumptuous violent reaction to this week's unendurablely lawful Scotus decisions.

  4. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: Could the purely partisan Jan.6 hearings hamper President Trump as a 2024 Presidential possibility? I also doubt it Dr.Waddy!

  5. Dr.Waddy from Jack: "Well gee, I surely don't like women being told they can't have abortions in some states. But then again, being suburban, I drive alot, of necessity and that has a far more direct effect on me! Gee, if this was part of Biden's resolve to destroy the use of gas powered cars, to save Mother Earth,maybe he could have given me some advance warning?! I just bought a 2021 vehicle perceived at that time to be dutifully parsimonious of perfidious fossil fuel. And that the precipitously and unexpectably advanced price of fuel MIGHT have some effect on the price of groceries, well gosh, that does make sense. So will I vote for the fool who, oh possibly under the influence of advisors who have only unattached, uneducated, uncomprehending contempt for my concerns, celebrate this windfall!? NAWl!

  6. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Re: your revised commentary, I think: "such voices of scorn and derision are becoming more normative on the left": the left is powered by emotion and quite overcome by it when defied. They have always had hardly contained patience for our democracy! Let them continue their childish petulance,sans the violence. It will advance their marginalization and disempowerment. Then let them stew in their VERY own juices. Just imagine their hyperbolic, frantic insanity the day after the midterms. They may approach critical mass and its attendant self destruction! Let them nominate Newsome/AOC, oh do, DO!

  7. Dr. Waddy from Jack: The American left has meant, since the '60s, to invest a real America perceived as working far too hard in pursuit of "positive and constructive" lives to notice the far left's incipient takeover! But as usual they overstepped. The real America was as consequently cognizant as to purposefully elect Presidents who eventually turned the frivolous Scotus so valued of the left, to a lawful body. Now, the increasingly desperate left sees its disastrous solely purposed antiTrump Presidency as a last chance to gain store for the political famine bound to be their lot. And that, lefties, is because the real "woke" is a real America fully convinced since Jan. ,2021, that you have gone on full ,open offensive against all we cherish and value! You blew it!! You have conducted yourselves in our political process with bad will so reckless that we know it presents an honest declaration of how your rule would be! You've thoroughly forfeited Scotus, you bid very fair to deservedly lose the legislative branch! Good luck to your now soon to be politically beseiged 2 year lame duck executive branch!

  8. Rod is right that the November elections are a long way from being decided. He's right that deliverance may come... I'm right, however, that polling-wise we see no sign of it arriving.

    A good case for charging Trump with fraud? Then why hasn't the Justice Department already done so? They needed the House to draw them a picture first? Come on...

    I agree, Jack, that the Biden administration won't exert itself to enforce the Dobbs decision, but in a way it doesn't have to. The states that want to criminalize abortion are entirely capable of doing so. Will the feds stand in their way, in any meaningful sense? I doubt it. It's more likely that they'll devise workarounds, some of which could be quite effective.

    Hmm. How will the Left react to a major midterm comeuppance? They might pitch a fit, it's true. I think that's much more likely in the event that Trump wins a second term. Then I fully expect the Left to lose its collective mind. It might even tell Biden that the time has come to destroy democracy in order to save it... Jack, you dare the Left to go further, further, further down their rabbit hole, in the firm conviction that the American people will rebuke them. My fear is that, as long as they control the executive branch, the mayhem and mischief they can cause is virtually unlimited...

    1. Nick Ray here. Don't worry about elections this Fall 2022 or Fall 2024. There will be huge Covid surges during those time periods (or at least there will be some sort of a pandemic), which will make it absolutely necessary for mail in ballots, and whatever else worked for the DemoNISTAS to "win" the last time. Nothing can stop that coming Marxist dictatorship (American style), that is already here, and must continue in the future. The goal is The United Socialist States of America.

  9. As for the effect on polls of the Dobbs decision, it will definitely be there. There are states that are trying to criminalize a woman and/or an abortion provider going to a state where abortion is legal. Prohibiting an abortion for rape and incest is HUGELY unpopular.

    Will the economy be the driving issue? Yes, but if you dismiss the impact of Dobbs, you really don't know politics at all.

    As for charging Trump with a crime, charging an ex-president would be unprecedented, so if the DOJ is going to proceed, it will need to have an airtight case. Maybe it will be fraud, maybe obstruction of justice, maybe incitement to interfering with a government proceeding (maybe all three). Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony today was devastating to Trump. The raid on Jeffrey Clark's home, and getting John Eastman's phone ensures that, if nothing else, the committee's work will completely sink Trump's 2024 candidacy, and put some of his close associates in jail.

    I do wonder that if Trump does get convicted, what will be the brightest orange color, Trump's face or his prison wear?

    1. Hey there Rod Man Your Trump hatred is showing. What if Trump goes to prison? Are you so damned stupid not to realize that there are several solid real Republicans who could run for president and win. Have a nice day, dimwit.

    2. Several candidates? The only one competitive with Trump is DeSantis. Nikki Haley is hated by Trumpsters. Cruz is a loser. Chris Sununu, maybe, though outside of New England, no one knows him. There's no one else even close. David Cameron from KY might be competitive in 2028. The only thing that saves the GOP with its weak collection of candidates is that the Dems don't have a whole lot. If Biden doesn't run (that's 50-50), Harris will not be the candidate. The next up would be Buttigieg -- who would be the best candidate on any side as no one can match his intelligence or articulateness. Should Stacy Abrams win GA, a Buttigieg-Abrams ticket would win in a walk.

      But, if not Buttigieg, pickings are really slim. Klobuchar? Maybe if paired with someone like Pete Aguilar of CA.

  10. Dr.Waddy from Jack: In your last post, reference was made to Mitch's "illegitimate" blocking of Merrick Garland's candidacy. The American left, as an eventually very disloyal opposition, in and out of power, was the side which in the 60s opened the Pandora's box of "anything goes" in our polity. Starting with spitting on vets, burning flags, bombing the Capitol and calling police "pigs": it is the direct origin of the profound and probably irreparable division in our polity, culture and society today. It has captured the dem party. Well, lefties, what did you expect? Did you think the real America, would wilt, fluff, surrender? First ,we learned much from your tactics, which reveal a full expectation on your part that you WILL win and that "any means necessary" is OK. Reagan gave you a early warning of our awakening to your realpolitik! But Trump and McConnell stood tall in putting the disdainful thumb in your presumptuous eye, meeting you without cringing Rino apology and today, the dreadful consequences for your totalitarian intent are paramount. "Illegitimate block" ; nonsense, its just what you would have done! By nowyour 50 year obvious all out effort to destroy our imperfect country is plainly displayed. And we are not going to countenance it: we are organized, fully aware of your antiAmerican, totalitarian intent and we are poised and ready to snitch your even partial control of the Federal l legislative branch! Too bad lefties but you brought this on yourselves with your unrelenting, haughty,dreamy Marxist games!

  11. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Of course I was referring to the observation in the comment section of your last post. I share your gratitude for Mitch and for President's Trump and Bush for the lasting good they did in establishing this lawful Scotus!

  12. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Today leftist commanded marionette Pino Biden bleats that now, yes, radical leftist elimination of filibuster is fine with him, forcing as he hopes, lame duck dem imposition of shaky "codification" of now discredited Roe v Wade on an unwilling real America! . Let them thrash and let them bleat! Should he secure an unlikely temporary salient, it will be overpowered and rightly so!!

  13. You heard it here first: Ray predicts a series of pandemics conveniently timed to coincide with our next two election cycles. Personally, I think the only SAFE way to vote is telepathically. I also think we should trust Sleepy Joe to count the psychic votes. I predict this will lead to the most secure election in our nation's history!

    Rod, that's the first I've heard about states trying to criminalize out-of-state travel to obtain an abortion. Wouldn't that be a federal matter? Do you have any additional info on this?

    Rod, I see you are still living in lala-land re: Trump's future. You do realize that, thus far, your attempts to smear the man as an insurrectionist have fallen completely flat? His approval ratings are HIGHER now than when he was in office!!! They're also higher than Biden's. He regularly out-polls Biden in presidential matchups. Connect the dots, Rod! The January 6th committee has been a clunker, politically. Now, that doesn't mean that you won't pull some criminal charges out of thin air. You might. You might even find a sympathetic jury that will convict. My advice is you better try, because your grip on our country's future, which seemed so sure in early 2021, is loosening every day.

    Oh, Rod. If you think "Buttigieg-Abrams '24" will be your deliverance, you really are at sea... I can think of about 10,000 potential Dem presidential tickets better than that one. Like, Biden-Harris, for instance! And that one, as we all know, is scraping the bottom of the barrel already.

    Ray is right: the GOP doesn't need Trump to win in '24. In fact, if you removed him from the field, Rod, you might well be doing us a favor. Has that ever crossed your mind?

    Jack: quite right! The party that wants to abolish the filibuster and pack the court whines and moans about not getting a speedy decision on Merrick Garland? Boo hoo!

    Luckily, there is ZERO chance of the codification of Roe v. Wade, so long as the filibuster endures. It's worth remembering, of course, that we are always just one bad election cycle in the Senate from the Dems throwing a grenade at the foundations of that august institution... My advice to America is: hand control of Congress back to Republicans, and never, never again give it to the Democrats, because if you do you won't recognize the country when they're done "transforming" it.

  14. Missouri had already proposed legislation to criminalize abortion obtained by Missouri state residents where "sexual intercourse occurred within this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse." Louisiana also has a bill in their House along similar measures. Both Missouri and Texas are considering extending a right of private action to sue state citizens getting out of state abortions. One would think (as Kavanaugh noted) that those laws would violate federal guidelines, but Kavanaugh also said Roe was a "super-precedent."

    As for Trump's poll numbers, an equal number of registered voters in a Fox News poll rated Trump as favorable v. unfavorable. In February, Trump has 54% unfavorable v. 45% favorable. In mid-June (before the Hutchinson revelations), Trump had a 55% unfavorable v. 44% favorable. The next poll will give a better indication as to the impact of the hearings.

    Buttigieg ran a sensational campaign for an unknown mayor from South Bend. He has strong support from younger voters and women. He also is by far the most intelligent and articulate potential candidate on either side. His weakness has been within the Black community, which having Abrams on the ticket would help him with (plus she is also very popular among young people, and, if she wins GA -- Kemp and her are now tied, according to the new Emerson poll -- she would be the governor of a southern state).

    None of the Trumpster competitors would match the ticket's intelligence and articulateness, or their appeal among younger voters and voters of color.

    I'm not worried about any non-Trump Trumpsters. DeSantis is Trump's mini-me. Pompeo has no charisma. Cruz is a loser. Haley and Noem have been beaten up by MAGats. The best thing that could happen to the GOP would be for Trump to run and lose, thus having the Trump fever burn itself out. In that way, appealing conservative candidates, like Adam Kinzinger and Daniel Cameron, can be competitive in 2032.

    The filibuster has only been around since 1917, and its ignominious history shows that it was most prominently used by Dixiecrat senators to block Civil Rights legislation from 1957 to 1965. I have no problem with the speaking filibuster -- you can filibuster so long as you can hold the floor (which is was for the first half of its existence).

  15. Well, I wouldn't get too exercised about "proposed legislation". I'm sure there's "proposed legislation" to make a penguin president-for-life somewhere... Doesn't mean the penguins can start counting their chickens.

    Okay, you're waiting for that polling windfall to drop any day now... Good luck! :)

    Jeez, Rod, you really think America is looking to elect the most "intelligent" ticket on offer? Have you met any Americans -- ever? If that's your recipe for success, you're barking up the wrong tree.

    So you think we should nominate Adam Kinzinger? Great idea! Actually, why don't we just nominate Liz Cheney? If there's a more "tame" Republican out there, I can't think of one... Of course, she'd be obilging and lose the election (big), which from your perspective is the job of a Republican anyway. Maybe there's a method to your madness.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.


    2. Nick, I am confident that I know as many people from various walks of life (demographics, political ideology, geography, etc) as you do. I have a range just within my own family. My mother was an impolite racist, homophobic conservative, my father was a polite racist, homophobic conservative, one brother is a moderate (fiscally conservative, social liberal), one brother is a Trumpster and one is a 60s radical who makes his living in horticulture.

      The U.S. is not looking for the most intelligent ticket, but it is looking for a more articulate one. Biden's worsening stuttering problem from aging makes him sometimes cringeworthy to listen to, while Trump's 25-word vocabulary (including such gems as "bigly") was embarrassing.

      Both Buttigieg and Abrams are great speakers, and inspiring. Both also answer interview questions as well as any politician.

      Kinzinger is the type of Republican who has crossover appeal. He's young, so he will appeal to younger voters; he's a veteran, so he will appeal to pro-military voters; he's smart and articulate, so he will appeal to college-educated voters; and he is also physically attractive, which never hurts.

      Kinzinger is very conservative, but one whose conservatism comes from principles rather than political expediency or dark impulses. I don't agree with Kinzinger, but I respect him. I think he has a bright political future.

      After watching the GOP Wyoming debate, I certainly am not counting Cheney out. She blew all four of her opponents out of the water. Hagerman has exactly one thing going for her -- Trump's endorsement -- which might carry her to victory. But I also think there are folks who watched that debate and said I am mad at Liz, but Hagerman is unqualified.

    3. Is there a better example of one who values style over substance than this post?

      The fascination of intellectual veneer over practical application is disturbing.

      The depth of disdain for Cheney among the Republican base is palpable. Her ability to communicate offers no redemption. Liz is a fish out of water gasping for air. The only value she brings is to the Democratic party. siphoning off votes from the real GOP nominee. Which, to Mr. Caruth's satisfaction, may happen.

      The style over substance quandary is not unique to those on the other side of the aisle. There are plenty who subscribe. Disgusting.

    4. Richie, go to C-SPAN and look up the Wyoming Republican Primary Debate. Please watch it and then tell me which of the candidates was promoting substance and which were promoting only style.

      BTW, my last name is Carveth, not Caruth.

  16. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: Good question. When a state proscribes an action does it follow that its citizens are liable for the state's prosecution(or even the state enabled ability of citizens to sue other citizens )for perceived violation of certain state proscriptions? The Texas law enabling the same is new and highly controversial. My amateur guess is that there would now be little federal or state statutory or case law to confirm action by a state against violation of state law outside the state(?)

  17. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: Also, as far as I know Scotus is an appellate court with no power to consider issues raised in its august colloquium alone.I think their cases must be advanced from without, enduring the test of due process, yes!? Too, Justice Thomas is but one of nine (yes?)and his legal reasoning, while plausible ( he maintains that solely procedural precedents cannot support "substantive" findings and that that, which gave Roe v Wade significant legal discreditation, should be considered in the light of similarly perhaps fatuous Scotus decisions, even unto the decisions themselves should they be recklessly cited to this legally principled Scotus! )So presumptuous dreamers about a Constitution infinitely pliable in your irrefutably "just" hands: be therefore WARNED!! But be unwillingly also made known that this is an insolently law abiding Court: your dreaded worst fear! This is a new world and unfortunately for you intolerant of your slippery legal mores and your "anything goes" 1960s Critical Legal Studies presumptions!Elections have consequences" chided law professor Obama. You accept all his pronunciamentos as WRIT! Well, why not this! ? Justice Thomas cannot alone enact your worst nightmares (excepting his regional jurisdiction in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and that is subject to Scotus review) so step off from your frantic indignation and reluctantly surrender to the democratic process!The clear road to your assured totalitarian triumph you so joyously percecieved guaranteed the night before the 2016 election was stopped by the real America landslide and that will become a Mt. St. Helens this November. Oh well, there will always be Berkeleys, San Franciscos,Austins, Bostons, Missoulas, New Paltzs, etc available for a redeemed America to gape at as bizarre remnants of an American era as discredited as Soviet Russia! May you retreat to them and there thrash impotently!!

  18. The democratic process? Trump lost by over 2 million votes in 2016! If it was truly a democratic process in the United States, Clinton would have been president. In fact, Gore would have been president. Our electoral college system is anti-democratic. It gives each electoral college vote in Wyoming the same as that of California.

    So, please don't prattle on about a "democratic process" when "blue" senators represent 41 million more voters than "red" senators.

  19. Dr.Waddy et al fromJack: One need only consider NY state to envision a US without the electoral college.Because of numerical invulnerability, caused by NYC,the dem party RULES NY. with utter contempt for common sense upstate. Sure ,majority rule is a solid principle but it can produce injustice like that. Without the electoral college Gore would have been imposed even on his home state. Would it have been democratic for countrintuitive Ca and NY to have dictated to Wyoming a disdained Hillary regime? That and the Senate were meant to give less populous states some chance of avoiding complete domination by populous areas often manifesting principles inimical to much of the country.

  20. Jack, Trump was imposed upon NY (his home state) in 2016, so not sure what your point about Gore is. In addition, is it fair to have counterintuitive Wyoming imposed upon Connecticut and Delaware.

    The point I had made before is that whatever justification that you make for the electoral college, the electoral college is not democratic.

  21. Rod, that's good that you keep varied company. That's a sign of an open mind.

    (And I would remind you that Barack Obama opposed gay marriage less than 10 years I guess that makes him a homophobe too.)

    I guess you're right that being "articulate" is useful to a president, but honestly we haven't had many presidents who were master orators. It's hard to escape the conclusion that Americans "cringe" (to use your phrase) at intellectualism just as often as they do at stupidity. Maybe more often, as a matter of fact. I mean, you lefties are ALWAYS reminding us that you're the smartest people in the room...and somehow you still lose elections. Funny, that.

    And how can Kinzinger have a political future when even he recognizes he's unelectable? You're discussing a GOP that simply doesn't exist, Rod. Can someone other than Trump lead the party? Sure. Can a Never-Trumper? I don't think so.

    I agree with Richie: Cheney doesn't have a chance in Wyoming, period/exclamation mark. She can be as "articulate" as she likes. It ain't gonna help. And Rod, you do realize that lefties have a known tendency to find anyone "articulate" who tells them what they want to hear... Are there any Trumpers who are articulate, in your view? If not, that's a little suspicious, wouldn't you say?

    Jack, that's my sense too about the legalities of bans on out-of-state abortions, but I imagine we'll find out soon enough. And I sure do wish and hope and pray that the lefties will someday retreat to their last (academic) bastions, but I'll believe it when I see it.

    Rod, the only form of "democracy" you recognize is one governed by the popular vote? In that case, ALL of our institutions stand condemned, including the whole Constitution, and not just the electoral college. What's more, you must be a bitter enemy of Obergefell, which was a total rebuke of the democratically-expressed wishes of the American public, expressed through numerous referenda on the subject. Funnily enough, leftists don't mind victories that are imposed "undemocratically", but they resent defeats that arise democratically OR "undemocratically"... It's almost as though there's no underlying principle there at all. Almost.

  22. Nick, it is one thing for Obama not moving forth on gay marriage for political reasons (perceiving it as too early) and being against the ability for two adults who love each other to get married.

    Kinzinger is hardly unelectable. After redistricting because IL lost a congressional seat, Kinzinger was in a more Democratic district. It was an easy political calculation that with Pritzker a popular governor and no Senate openings, it was a good cycle to sit it out. Had there been a Senate opening, Kinzinger may very well have run.

    Again, Nick, you like to change my words and their clear meaning. I had said that the electoral college is not in any way democratic, nor is our country a democracy. As far as Obergefell, the decision came down at the of June 2015. The Gallup poll released right before the decision showed 60% of the respondents favored same sex marriage, and that poll came two weeks after a similar poll showed 57% support. There were NO referenda of the American public. There were a few referenda of specific states, which represents only narrow slices of the American public. We did not have a national referendum on same-sex marriage, which the polls suggest may very well have passed.

    Finally, there's slightly more than a month to the WY election. After the WY primary debate (and I am hoping there are several more), Cheney is looking stronger. She also has a ton of money to spend. She is not running in favorable conditions, but she's not out of it.

  23. Ahhh. It's okay to be "homophobic" when it's done for reasons of expediency... Thanks for the clarification.

    Seems to me a "more Democratic district" is precisely the sort of district in which Kinzinger would have had a chance! We all know he would have been torched in the GOP primary, though...

    Rod, of course there was no national referendum on same-sex marriage. We don't have national referenda. What we had was COUNTLESS state-level referenda, and the good guys (my crowd) won them ALL... None of which impresses you, Mr. Democracy, in the least, because your leftist principles trump democracy every time.

  24. Nick, Obama was not against gay marriage. He was against pushing for gay marriage at a particular time. I am sure that you know the difference.

    Thirty-one of the 50 states banned same-sex marriage. With the exception of WI, CA and NC, all were red states. With the exception of NC (2012), all were passed on or before 2008, thus not reflecting the trend in public opinion being expressed in terms of supporting gay marriage.

    If the United States was a true democracy, then only a national referendum would reflect the will of ALL the people.

  25. Rod from Jack: The electoral college was established by a democratic process at the Constitutional Convention. It has obtained over two hundred years in a democracy very responsive to constructive , well justified change.Most of the time it confirms the popular vote but withGore and especially with Hillary it prevented candidates consummately , and with a sneer, dismissive of the views of the real America. It was not Wyoming which forced these decisions on insular teeming liberal strongholds. It was
    a process long established in American law and tradition, which gave Bush and Trump their winning majorities. The Gore and Hillary campaigns ought to have fully understood the Electoral College dynamic . Democracy is a many faceted phenomenom which liberals have been blithe to ride to questionable victory. EG Kennedy in 196 0. If you lefties on the congested coasts don't like our ability to thwart you in the Electoral College, as intended in that very democratic compromise between the populous and sticks states at the Convention, then why don't you just move into the real America and attempt to take over its polity DEMOCRATICALLY!? You probably don't have the guts for a fair fight and an objective test of your totalitarian intents! Our proven positive traditional views would repel you of dreamy, unempirical leftist conviction. Too bad!

  26. If you are saying that the electoral college was established by a democratic process, that would only be IF democratic process is being defined as a majority of votes. But, none of those voters were female or people of color, so it was hardly a democratic process that represented the will of the people. In addition, the Founding Fathers expected that each elector would vote. Instead, with the growth of political parties, all but two states are winner-take-all -- again, not democratic.

    As far as the rest of the response, exactly what is the "real America?" ALL of America is the "real" America, not just Red States.

    We won in 2020 by over 7 million votes. That's nearly 5% of the popular vote -- a truly democratic win!

  27. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: I have borrowed from the book by the then '70s "Conservative Democrat" ( a now counterintuitive term) Ben Wattenberg : The Real America. In it he described an American majority quite ordinary and predictable in its middle class values; one not at all radical. I use it now to describe an America which does not support the ideal that the US needs the "fundamental transformation" so very obviously now intended by the very much more powerful "american" left from our White House itself and not for the first time since the America hating 60's. I ask: what real citizen of an arguably humane nation purposes its destruction on the most subhuman, murderous, fully world proven totalitarian model as do "american " leftists: Marxism and its malignant sprouts!? Many of their supporters are of good will but they do not comprehend the purposes of those they support, the grimly determined leftists who use them and will casually discard them when they wish.

  28. Dr.Waddy et al rom Jack : Alright, lets compare the consequences of the pre Rousseau Enlightenment views whic h informed so many of those who wrote our Constitution with the mid 19th century catastrophically ventured Marxist views which poisoned the 20th century! That the writers of our Constitution lacked the expansive views ENABLED into power (eg by the Civil War and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments ) must countenance the cultural context of their time. Marxists have always displayed complete scorn for cultures upon which they intend imposition of their views! The comparative results are obvious!

  29. Rod, Obama was against gay marriage before he was for it. All the mental gymnastics in the world won't change that. And you're right: public attitudes have changed on gay marriage. A lot. Mainly because the Left simply wouldn't take "no" for an answer, which is your philosophy on a lot of issues. Hey, I give you credit: you're relentless, and completely incapable of self-doubt.

    Jack, you are absolutely right: the electoral college isn't "anti-democratic". It's merely a form of democracy that doesn't always produce congenial results for leftists (which is, of course, their definition of the word "anti-democratic"). Majority rule is only one permutation of democracy. It wasn't the one that our Founders always favored. Don't like that? Hard cheese!

    Rod, are you of the view that the constituency system that obtains in the House of Representatives is undemocratic? It can, and sometimes does, produce a majority of seats for one party even if they don't win the popular vote for the chamber as a whole. For that reason, I guess you'd favor proportional representation? And would you allow non-citizens to vote, I wonder?

    Well said, Jack: Marxism and its "sprouts" are the antithesis of democracy. Frankly, though, I tire of this term -- "democracy" -- and our endless debates about how to define it. Personally, I hold with the Founders: "democracy" is all well and good, but it isn't the ONLY good. There are times when democracy must be limited and channeled in the interests of a higher purpose.