Affirmative Action In Clinton’s Cabinet

A VERY WRONG-HEADED HILLARY CLINTON:

BEFORE THE INSANITY OF CLINTON’S SEXIST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:

Quite a few readers commented on my one-liner at the end of the last Editorial about the UNDEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

I’m NOT an expert on just about anything, but I can read, reason and understand. And what I have read, reasoned, and understood of the Electoral College, is that it was formed in the late 1700’s (Constitutional Convention of 1787), which was later ratified in 1804 by the 12th Amendment.

So . . . what has changed between 1804 and today?

1 – The American Population was about 4-MILLION People in 1804. Today, the population is well over 300-MILLION People.

2 – Most people did not vote, since it was the “obligation” of Insiders and Elitists to more or less pick and choose whom they wanted to run the United States of America.

3 – The bulk of the Population lived on the East Coast, leaving little to no voice for the sparse population in the rest of the country.

4 – WOMEN DIDN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

5 – The NEWS of every Major City in America . . . was absolutely CONTROLLED and INFLUENCED by a handful of Press Barons, all of whom made or broke Political Parties and Candidates at their will, who used their incredible influence for the benefit of themselves and friends.

BUT TODAY . . . there are more than FIFTEEN THOUSAND Radio Stations, with literally all of the successful Talk-Radio Broadcasters leaning RIGHT.

There are THOUSANDS of Television Stations owned by or affiliated with the THREE BIG NETWORKS . . . ABC, NBC, and CBS. And then there are Thousands upon Thousands of Markets reached by Cable News TV Stations in the names of – FOX NEWS, CNN, MSNBC, & CNBC.

THEN THERE’S THE GIANT IN THE ROOM . . . THE INTERNET:

I personally have more readers to this BLOG than most medium sized Newspapers and Magazines have to their Editorial Pages in most American Cities. And I’m just one of too many to count.

AND THEN THERE ARE THE POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES . . . who each have their own BLOGS, which are super-professionally created and managed.

SO . . . WHEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION – Why the Electoral College then, and why not now, how can anyone compare then to now?

Not that many years ago, ending with President Ronald Reagan, there was the Broadcast Fairness Doctrine, which the LEFT would LOVE to reestablish, which was created during the time of limited Radio and Television ownership (circa 1949), when there were only a few Broadcast Owners . . . to keep the FEW from controlling all the Information and Political discourse.

BUT TODAY . . . the Broadcast Fairness Doctrine no longer exists, because it is simply an ANACHRONISM. And for the same reason, NEITHER SHOULD THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE CONTINUE TO EXIST.

One eligible person – One Vote . . . Most Votes Win – End of Story.

And before you COMMENT or send me your opinions, please have a look at this LINK to understand how and why the Electoral College was originally created, and ask yourself how any of this history resembles the current political reality of the United States of America.

BACK TO ANOTHER VERY WRONG-HEADED HILLARY CLINTON IDEA:

I WANT TO SEE A WOMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE . . . now how stupid and sexist is that, which is uttered by so many Hillary Clinton Supporters? Why would anyone want to see a Woman in the White House, opposed to the BEST PERSON in the White House?

It’s no less LUDICROUS than those people who promote Black Lives Matter, as if Black Lives are more important to anyone else’s life of a different Color.

Hillary Clinton is saying that women will encompass 50% of her Cabinet “when” she becomes the President – not if – but when she becomes the President, because women comprise 50% of the American population. So, is that how her Cabinet is going to look?

OK . . . will she then GUARANTEE that 13% of her Cabinet will be comprised of Black Americans, and NO MORE OR LESS THAN THAT, since Black Americans only account for 13% of the entire American Population?

Will she also GUARANTEE that 17% of her Cabinet will be comprised of Hispanic Americans, and NO MORE OR LESS THAN THAT, for the same reason of limiting Black Americans?

I’m Jewish . . . so should I expect that all Jewish Americans should demand that 2% of our Jewish Population be in Hillary Clinton’s Cabinet, and NO MORE OR LESS THAN THAT?

And what about Native Americans, shouldn’t they also demand that they receive 2% of the Positions in Clinton’s Cabinet, and NO MORE OR LESS THAN THAT, because they are 2% of the American Population?

THIS IS THE KIND OF STUPID THOUGHT . . . WHICH IS WHY WE’RE SO SCREWED:

America VOTED for a Black Guy in 2008 and 2012 MOSTLY because he was Black . . . and how well has that worked out for the USA?

What ever happened to America being a MERITOCRACY, which was created and built upon the premise of the best people for the best jobs?

Perhaps Hillary Clinton would reserve an important spot in her Cabinet for a MAN/WOMAN who has Boobs and a Penis, who sleeps with women only on EVEN days of the week, and men only on ODD days of the week, who also demands to use any bathroom HE/SHE feels comfortable using . . . with young children present?

If you’ve never seen what a PIÑATA looked like after the party was over, wait for November, and you’ll get an idea once seeing what will be left of Hillary Clinton, after Trump gets through with her on November 8, 2016.

Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov

22 Comments

  • Sunnewsmedia.ca great resource for daily interviews and commentary

    http://tinyurl.com/qyhabfm

    Marvin Levant, Calgary
  • Clinton’s cabinet? Let’s hope she doesn’t get elected so there will be no Clinton cabinet.

    Harold Pomerantz, Dundas, Ontario, Canada
  • Good insight Howard with excellent information. I was not aware, but am now due to you, as to how and why the Electoral College was formed and you are right, the reason now longer is valid. Keep up the good work in informing us. Thank you.

    Oswald Ziesmann, Westbank, BC
  • Interesting thoughts about the electoral college. While long a pure constitutionalist I have had to admit lately that while core issues like the division of the government into three branches, the basic responsibility of a federal government, and those other responsibilities that are largely international should remain sacrosanct this issue should at least be discussed for change. Not changed, but discussed to explore options more suited to current situations.

    Chester Przygoda, Rochester Hills, Michigan
  • Trump will be the next President and the Establishment and other corrupt, career politicians better get over it. If Hillary is elected, kiss the USA goodbye.

    Peggy Johns Bland, San Antonio, Texas USA
  • If someone had told me ten years ago that the next American president would be black simply for the novelty of being the first black president, and then the one after this one would be a woman simply for the novelty of being the first female president, I would have laughed him out of the room. Today America is so politically correct screwed up, the first is a reality and the second is a distinct possibility. When merit and integrity no longer count, America has gone seriously off the rails.

    Barry Jackson, St. Lazare, Quebec
  • Our founders abhorred democracy because of tendency for majority to abuse minority. The whole concept was limited government whose duty was to protect citizens’ individual and collective rights. The representative form of government, a republic, functioned to insulate that majority from abusing a minority by holding the Constitution and other organic law (i.e. Confederation of States, Declaration of Independence, Northwest Ordinance). Now that we ignore all that, might makes right, or rights.

    Charles A. Orr, Huntsville, Alabama, United States
  • Howard, I agree with most of your points. But, – supposedly – the EC is also to be a safety valve protecting the country, constitution etc from a wildly erroneous popular vote. For example, the people wanted for some insane reason to elect someone POTUS that was (from the least threatening) say a person who didn’t meet the Constitutional guidelines for the office. Or (to the most threatening) espoused disposing with the US Bill of rights. The EC could step in & correct this error.

    David Norris, Wichita, Kansas, United States
  • Howard you are right on today’s blog. I try to get my news through blogs and word of mouth, I have a dislike of the TV and newspapers as they seem to support one person running for office and denounce the others. Prince died last week (problem from drugs ) and for 3-5 days this was the lead story in all news media. Every week a member of the military is killed in Afghanistan ,Iraq ,and you will only find there bio in there home town news service, why not on national new services.

    Larry Lehrman, Aventura, Florida, United States
  • The objective of the electoral college was to have a president who was not some “favorite son” of a few large states dominate with a majority rule. He had to have a broad nationwide approval. Change it and 3 or 4 states could control the presidency. NY, CA, and TX for example. My opinion is the fly-over states would lose out badly. There would be no campaigning in half of the states. Thankfully it takes 3/4 of the states to change that element of the constitution. Don’t fix something that works.

    Bob Driscoll, Woodland Hills, California, United States
  • EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT EDITORIAL! The best line in your Editorial is…”America VOTED for a Black Guy in 2008 and 2012 MOSTLY because he was Black . . . and how well has that worked out for the USA?” People should be voting for the person who will best serve our Country–not for a particular sex, color, etc… It’s false to believe that WOMEN will not vote for TRUMP. Whether she realizes it or not, HILLARIOUS is DONE! Can’t wait for the TRUMP-CLINTON DEBATES! AMEN!

    PAULINE M DEMERS, Woonsocket, RI - USA
  • Howard, great article, but the EC process is in my opinion, a lot better than what we have here in Canada. You know very well that our Federal Elections are over after Quebec and Ontario have voted. The West has almost no say. An EC would eliminate this fact, and could very well be the best thing that ever happened in Canada as far as fairness. But we all know it won’t happen!

    Don Bos., Thorhild, Alberta, Canada
  • The Founders set up a brilliant system including the Electoral College to avoid Mob rule (aka pure democracy). It is still a valid institution today – the less populated states such as those in the Western US would have no voice in electing the President, just a handful of large states and population centers such as New York and California. Talk about tyranny. The Left has pushed to abolish the electoral college for years because of that.

    Doug Williams, Ferndale, WA
  • Howard–always pertinent information. As I understand it, in a Republic, the majority rules. The public should elect by a majority vote. However, can one imagine the mess without strict voter eligibility regulation? I would trust my spayed female cat more than public officials. Keep up the good work.

    Richard O. Miller, Menifee, CA USA
  • Unfortunately, Baby Trudeau wants to change the electoral system in Canada and to what we don’t know. He has stated that he needs not ask the population because he was elected with a “landslide” vote (39%). Heaven help us if he goes to anything other than a first past the post system. Would we end up with a N. Korea system? The mess in Italy? Run-off elections? Electoral college? Win/place/show as in some countries? What we have isn’t perfect, but its the best compared to the rest.

    Stephen Eisenberg, Montreal, Quebec
  • Fabulous Editorial, dear Howard, how do you manage to improve your output incessantly? We Canadians can be proud: do you remember who invented the cockamamie theory that women, representing 50% or so of the population, should also hold 50% of the Cabinet posts? But… Baby Trudeau, of course, right after he was elected, “because, you know, this is now 2015!”

    Louise Zizka, Vancouver, BC
  • Howard the EC system is still valid. To do away with leads to mob rule and the mob will be the NE US, Ca., Wa., and Or. States with smaller populations would be deemed unnecessary and their votes would be useless. Not the American way. Popular vote is mob rule. We do not need mob rule in America.

    Kenneth Lee, Lake Alfred, Florida, United States
  • Howard, I always enjoy your comments. Proportional representation should never be the reason to place people in positions of influence and authority.The most capable available people should be the qualification. On a slightly different thought, maybe an EC might have tempered the reactionary vote in Alberta because of too many political entitlement actions over too long a period. Now we will have to be patient till the next election. At least we are at war as the case in the middle east.

    Alan Fraser, Barons, Alberta, Canada
  • Having others represent you in Congress is necessary due to the extensive amount of time it would require to understand the issues and then vote for or against them. In the past, time, distance and slow communications required a delegate system for the nomination process and the electoral college for the actual election. We now have ample communication to allow a one-person-one-vote nominating and election process. In both cases, I do support a majority rather than a plurality to win.

    Richard Smith, Prosper, Texas
  • The U.S.A. is a REPUBLIC!!! We are not a DEMOCRACY. There is a huge difference between the two. We are not ruled by a MAJORITY – thank God and our wise Forefathers who gave us our Constitution. When asked by a woman after the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin stated: “We are a Republic – if we can keep it.” The Progressives/Socialists would like to make some major changes. The Precinct Delegates are the most important people in the Presidential election. We need the EC.

    Eugenia Obrecht, Washington, Michigan
  • What about Hillary’s cabinet? What if she’d planned 1,000 women in her cabinet? Remember, she stole the cabinets in the White House when evicted; her well-oiled money-laundering scheme in the Clinton Foundation with which to pay so many women; she’s a pathological liar which explains her lies to fill her cabinet with women – did I mention her being a pathological liar? Even her past employer at the Rose Law Firm said he’d fired her for being the most unethical lawyer he’d ever seen. She’ HISTORY

    Ronald Kolsky, BOCA RATON, Florida, United States

Comments are closed.