Watch The Skies Blacken! John Bolton No Obama Patsy! Government Treatment.

I am repeating this post pertaining to the rationale for The Electoral College.

Why?  Because Democrats want to eliminate it in order to win elections that only express the thinking of those who live in our bar bell states.

California and New York are inhabited by those who possess extreme values foreign to those of The Founders and do not accord with those which made our nation great.

What is so disturbing is that far too many Americans are unaware how radicals have taken over the Democrat Party and how the Democrat Party is subtly involved in melting the protections which distinguish  and separate our nations from all the others.

All too frequently, a healthy person does not always respond to an infection until it is too late.  Time and again, I have friends who have died because they did not pay attention to warning signs.

Our various freedoms are under attack and our most sensitive institutions are being reshaped to perform in ways never intended. This did not begin with Obama but it certainly accelerated with respect to The Justice Department, The IRS ,  various intelligence departments, most specifically the CIA and others. Instead of serving the public, in an unbiased manner, they have been turned into enemies of the people at large and  those whose views did not accord with the Administration's.

Democrats have attacked Trump's election using it as the fulcrum for claiming he is not only illegitimate but also was engaged in impeachable activities.  Far too many of those engaged in various illegitimate efforts against America's choice, and who were embedded in government by Obama, remain in powerful [positions to this very day. Though, their nefarious acts to cripple Trump's efforts have been uncovered  their resistance to provide incriminating documents etc. continues.

I understand why Trump is reluctant to fire Rosenstein along with  a host of other highly visible persons. Why? Because doing so would be portrayed as manipulating Mueller's specious investigation. Consequently,  the Obama termites remain and persist in protecting those who were engaged in a host of activities whose intent was to undermine our republic.

If Democrats capture The House, rest assured, all investigation of these renegades will cease and the timbers of our society will continue to weaken. What do I mean by this?  Abeyance to the rule of law will continue downward, our nation's borders will open wider and illegal immigration will soar.  Meanwhile voting roles will expand as these "illegal citizens" will be added to voting rolls.

If this is not bad enough, most of the positive results accomplished by Trump will be diluted if not reversed as Obama's restrictive and crippling laws will return, funding of our military will give way to expanded entitlements and our economic outlook will become murkier.

As Obama said, elections have consequences and these are the ones you can bank on because we should have learned after 8 Obama years.

If you believe I am wrong pull the lever for Democrats and then sit back and watch  the skies blacken. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is what is happening in America analogous to what has happened, over time, with the PLO? (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comments from Eric Erickson:

Not Intending to be Rude, But…

In which the Washington Post and AEI casually embrace insanity as normal  Read in browser »

Is CBS Getting Trumpy?

Leslie Stahl's "60 Minutes" softballs and CBS News tweeting a prayer for Trump: Is CBS going soft on the president?  Read in browser »

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  

Bolton is no patsy.  He would never have made it in The Obama Administration. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So you want to be examined and treated by government bureaucrats? (See 4 below.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) This is why the founders created the Electoral College…

In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented.

Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet.

It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

These numbers are astonishing. Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

 There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.               Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.                     Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

 When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory,it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.)

DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)

Warmed-over withdrawal syndrome ByDavid M. Weinberg Given the regional Arab meltdown, the inroads made by radical Islam in the Palestinian national movement, and the decrepit dictatorship that has become the Palestinian Authority – it is hard to believe that anybody still hawks the same old "solutions" for the Palestinian-Israeli arena. And yet, that is what center-left generals and former government officials did again this week, with the presentation of yet another passé plan for unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin – one of Israel's most important military men – and a group of colleagues at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies tabled a comprehensive plan of action to separate Israel from the Palestinians. It's about Israel unilaterally creating a contiguous Palestinian "entity" under the control of the Palestinian Authority comprising approximately 65% of the West Bank and taking steps to starve settlements outside the settlement blocs. The new "strategic framework" is wrapped up nice and pretty as original, professional and politically neutral research that took a year of intensive discussions to produce, and it is couched in high-soaring language about "taking Zionist initiative." But essentially it is the same, sad plan B for unilateral withdrawal in the absence of peace with the Palestinians that Yadlin proposed four years ago, and which he used as a political platform when he stood as Zionist Union candidate for defense minister in 2015. On the credit side of the ledger, the plan acknowledges a series of realities that are long overdue, beginning with the fact that there is no comprehensive peace deal to be had with the Palestinians any time soon, and it would be a mistake to attempt another frantic John Kerry-style effort to secure such a deal. There is no obvious solution to the Gaza situation, where Hamas has taken control, nor an easy compromise possible in Jerusalem. Thus, the INSS left these issues completely outside its plan. In these matters, Israel must just stick to its guns, literally and figuratively. The plan also stipulates that Israel will retain near-permanent control of the Jordan Valley for security reasons, and indefinite freedom of IDF action against terrorism throughout the West Bank, in all areas, no matter what nice or nasty entity the Palestinians might develop there. The plan allows for no Palestinian veto in these matters. But then Yadlin and Co. make a series of spurious and unsubstantiated arguments. First, that by ceding security control to the PA of some parts of Area B, and civilian/economic control of 25% of Area C (what the plan genteelly calls "reducing the dimensions of Israeli occupation"), Israel's security situation will improve. Second, that the granting of such unilateral goodies to the PA will encourage its moderation; and not, rather, teach Palestinian leaders just to ratchet up their demands and out-wait Israel – as they have adamantly done over the past 25 years. Third, that by doing so, Israel will gain more international legitimacy and Sunni Arab state cooperation. Fourth, and most problematic, these experts nonsensically claim that ending construction and government budgets for daily life in far-flung settlements – in effect, choking them to death – doesn't amount to another Gaza-style disengagement. While they don't propose physically dragging Israelis out of their homes in Shilo or Ofra, they suggest making it impossible and illegitimate to live there. Yadlin calls his plan a diplomatic Waze – an ingenious route out of the current situation toward an indeterminate but better future. I view it as Waze gone wacky, inevitably leading toward runaway and hostile Palestinian statehood, without securing an end to the conflict. After the Israeli withdrawal outlined in the plan, how is Israel going to be able to prevent the fall of Judea and Samaria to Hamas or one of the other jihadi groups now swarming the Middle East? If we reserve the right to regularly raid the territories to root out Hamas cells (which Yadlin correctly insists on), how is that any different from the situation today? And if we keep a significant troop presence on the hilltops and at key junctures, who will really consider this an end to the Israeli "occupation"? With Israel's civilian settlements in the Samarian mountains asphyxiated, can you imagine what will befall Israel's troop presence in the West Bank? Remember how badly Israel's "security zone" in southern Lebanon worked out? Our forces there had no legitimacy whatsoever, brought us sustained international opprobrium, and we suffered constant casualties. Do we want to turn the West Bank into southern Lebanon? Nor will unilateral moves provide Israel with diplomatic breathing room, as the plan's proponents claim. Withdrawing from one part of the territories won't convince anyone that Israel has a right to keep other parts. On the contrary: A partial Israeli pullout will intensify the illegitimacy of our remaining presence in the territories. Every Israeli retreat is taken as proof that the territories are all stolen property that must be returned to their rightful Palestinian owners. Unilateral withdrawals will bolster Palestinian maximalism, not engender Palestinian cooperation or moderation. What about the infuriating Palestinian campaign of denialism (denying Jewish history in Jerusalem and Israel through UNESCO resolutions and more), or the PA's "pay for slay" stipends to terrorists, or Palestinian lawfare that seeks to criminalize Israel in international legal forums like the ICC? Under Yadlin's "Zionist initiative" plan, Israel is supposed to swallow all this while unilaterally forking over parts of Areas B and C to the PA. Why reward the wayward PA in this way? Worst of all, unilateral withdrawal will unnecessarily and unjustifiably tear the internal fabric of this country asunder. It's unforgivable and simply indefensible to strangle Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria – if at all – without hope for real, comprehensive, sustainable peace in the near future. In short, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal will not enhance Israeli security nor improve Israel's international position and moral standing. It will rip Israeli society apart for no good reason. And as the Lebanon and Gaza precedents proved, unilateral Israeli withdrawal only guarantees continuation of the conflict and even its escalation, not its de-escalation. I prefer the view of Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Prime Minister Netanyahu's former national security adviser, who is now the Anne and Greg Rosshandler Senior Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies. (In fact, JISS was founded to be a conservative intellectual counterweight to the left-leaning INSS). Amidror rejects suggestions that Israel undertake unilateral initiatives – whether annexation of Judea and Samaria, or withdrawals from all or parts of the territory. Unilateral moves, he says, entail a very high domestic price for Israel, while earning Israel very few gains in diplomatic and defense terms. "Israel must not jeopardize its existence by embarking on rash initiatives that would radically worsen its security situation – just to please proponents of 'forward progress' at any cost. This risk is not worth taking," Amidror wrote. Amidror accepts that Israeli building in Judea and Samaria should best be focused in the settlement blocs and within the existing boundaries of settlements – as was reportedly agreed last year between Israel and the Trump administration. But that's a far cry from Yadlin's plan to suffocate settlements. "Israel should manage the conflict until conditions improve for a renewed negotiating effort at an agreed-upon solution. When on the edge of the cliff, standing still is preferable to stepping 'forward,'" Amidror concludes. David M. Weinberg is vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, jiss.org.il. His personal website is davidmweinberg.com. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3)Bolton Warns Chinese Military to Halt Dangerous Naval Encounters  Bill Gertz White House National Security Adviser John Bolton bluntly warned China this week that the U.S. military will not ignore threatening naval actions near U.S. warships in international waters. Doubling down on the Trump administration's tough policies toward China, Bolton also renewed criticism of Beijing for meddling in U.S. elections and stealing American technology. Commenting on the harassment of the guided missile destroyer USS Decatur by Chinese warship that nearly caused a collision in the South China Sea recently, Bolton said the threatening maneuver was unacceptable. Navy commanders have rules of engagement that allow them to defend their ships, he said. "The commanders have the authority we need," Bolton said in an interview with radio commentator Hugh Hewitt. "We will not tolerate threats to American service members. We're determined to keep international sea lanes open. This is something the Chinese need to understand. Their behavior has been unnecessarily provocative for far too long." The Navy said the Decatur was harassed by a Chinese Luyang-class destroyer on Sept. 30 near one of the Spratly islands. The Chinese ship conducted a series of aggressive maneuvers and sailed within 45 yards of the destroyer, forcing it to change course to avoid a collision. In the South China Sea, China has built up some 3,200 acres of disputed islands and has begun deploying advanced missiles on the islands. China claims the entire sea, which is used for an estimated $5 trillion annually in shipping trade, is Chinese territory. The United States insists the waters are international waters. The U.N. Permanent Court of Arbitration rejected Chinese claims to own the sea through a vaguely defined "nine-dash line" extending through most of the waterway. Bolton was asked if the United States should urge regional allies such as Philippines and Japan to counter the Chinese island-building and militarization by building their own armed islands. "I think we've got to do more first to establish for the Chinese that we do not acknowledge the legitimacy of any of this," Bolton said. "The ship near collision you mentioned is an example of how dangerous Chinese behavior is," he added. "We have now got more participation by allies, the British, the Australians, and others, are sailing with us through the South China Sea. We're going to do a lot more on that." Bolton also said regional allies also could begin to mine undersea energy resources in the South China Sea "with or without Chinese cooperation." "They need to know they have not achieved a fait accompli here. This is not a Chinese province and will not be," Bolton said. Bolton said the Chinese were able to get away with aggressive actions against Navy vessels and aircraft during the administration of President Barack Obama. Chinese threatening behavior is a result of the Obama administration ignoring or mishandling the confrontation. "The pressure's now on President Trump," Bolton said. "He's responded in a way that has the Chinese confused. They've never seen an American president this tough before. I think their behavior needs to be adjusted in the trade area, in the international, military, and political areas, in a whole range of areas." Bolton said he is hopeful Xi Jinping will be willing to "talk turkey" in addressing the problems during the upcoming meeting of the G20 group of nations meeting in Argentina set for next month. "But the president feels very strongly that China's taken advantage of the international order for far too long, not enough Americans have stood up to it. Now's the time to do it," he said. On Chinese theft of American technology and intellectual property, Bolton said the United States has been "taken to the cleaners for decades" by Beijing. "Ever since China came into the World Trade Organization, they have pursued a mercantilist economic policy in what should be a free trade environment," he said. "And they've gone well beyond that. They've violated rule after rule after rule." Those who argued Chinese admission to the World Trade Organization would pressure China into observing international rules and norms of behavior were wrong, he noted. "They've done the opposite. They've gotten worse. They steal our intellectual property so they're able to compete with us without the investment that's required in research and development. They force technology transfers from American and European companies," Bolton said. The Chinese have misused their access to the international system to build up their economy and then used their economic power to build up their military forces. On the issue of whether Russia or China poses the most significant strategic challenge to the United States, Bolton said: "I think we do see China as the major issue of this century." Trump, based on his business experience, is challenging China on economic ground and Bolton said blocking Chinese theft and acquisition of U.S. know-how would substantially reduce Beijing's military capabilities. Asked if Google and Facebook should be cooperating with the Chinese in developing information controls, Bolton said Vice President Mike Pence last week urged American tech companies not to cooperate with Chinese repression. "I would say to shareholders of these companies that portray themselves as the open internet, transparent future, really? You want to make money off of repression? If I were a shareholder, I'd want to know what the answer of our corporate leadership was," Bolton said. The Trump administration is tightening export controls in terms of restricting technology with dual civilian-military uses, and also doing more to prevent technology theft through cyber attacks. On Chinese election meddling, Bolton said the problem is serious. "We are very worried about the question of Chinese interference not just in individual elections, but more broadly trying to influence the American political discussion with an influence campaign that I think could well be unprecedented," he said. Echoing declassified intelligence made public during a speech by Pence, Bolton said the Beijing influence operations must be stopped. "I think the United States needs to stand up, frankly, to any foreign government that thinks it's going to interfere in our politics," he said. "We are a self-governing people. We will govern ourselves. We don't need international institutions to tell us how to do it. And we particularly don't need foreigners trying to exert undue influence over us." On the disappearance of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Bolton said he has spoken with Saudi officials and "we just don't know what the facts are." "The United States does not have information it's not revealing," he said. "If we had information, we'd know better exactly how to handle this. We've made it clear we want to know what the facts are. We're going to continue to do that." Bolton criticized the Obama administration for its so-called strategic patience policy toward North Korea that allowed Pyongyang to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles to deliver them. The past policy was "a synonym for doing nothing about North Korea." "I think the combination of the potential use of military force against North Korea and the maximum pressure campaign that the president waged on the economic front is what has brought Kim Jong Un to the table," he said, adding that Trump could meet Kim Jong Un for a second time in the next couple of months. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4) What’s Wrong with Government-Run Healthcare? If you get sick or suffer a serious injury, you not only want medical care, you want quality medical care. What’s the best way to get it? Through a government-run program like Medicare for All or through our current free market system? Stanford policy expert Lanhee Chen has the answer in this video from Prager University. Get informed. After all, this is your health we’re talking about.  ++++++++++