American Civics

Michigan inn removes Norwegian flag as residents falsely believe it’s the Confederate flag

A case of mistaken identity has caused the owners of a Michigan bed and breakfast to remove a Norwegian flag from the front of the inn after dozens of people confused the flag with a Confederate flag, a report said. When Greg and Kjersten Offbecker moved into the historic mansion in St. Johns years ago and turned it into a bed and breakfast called Nordic Pineapple, they installed the flag as a decoration and hung an American flag next to it, WLIX reported. However, dozens of guests and people driving by the inn have wrongly accused the couple of flying a Confederate flag. “They are the same color, but there are no stars on the Norwegian flag, and the Confederate flag is a big ‘x’ and the Norwegian flag is part of the Nordic countries, they’re all crosses,” Kjersten Offbecker said. Last week, the couple decided to remove the flag as part of a new marketing campaign, the report said. “We started to have this concern that it was deterring people away from coming to our bed and breakfast,” Offbecker said. “That they would see it and make this judgment.” Offbecker said the flag was hung as a way for her to represent her heritage, but with the confusion, she took it down because it was not worth the frustration, the television station reported. She said they have received cruel emails and phone calls over the confusion of the flag. “What we’re getting is so much more negative now,” she said. “It’s not just, ‘hey you’re flying the Confederate flag.’ It’s, ‘you should be ashamed to fly the Confederate flag. You’re a bigot because you fly the Confederate flag.’” Some people are even convinced the home was built by Confederate leaders, the report said. In fact, it was built by union workers for the daughter of the Saint Johns founder. The couple still wants to fly the Norwegian flag and is trying to find a new way to accomplish that without getting complaints.

Some people are so incredibly stupid!  And, just think…many of them are registered to vote.  Be afraid.  These poor people!!  If you’re Michigan and looking for a place to stay, look this Bed and Breakfast up and consider giving them your business.  For more on this story, click on the text above.

Mike Lee: America has ‘deviated dangerously’ from country’s core values

Over the past 80 years, the country has “deviated dangerously” from what was once an obvious distinction between federal and state power, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah said. In the new series “Fox Nation 101: The Constitution” Lee took viewers through the history and significance of America’s founding documents, highlighting the principles and core values that have shifted over the nation’s history. The “dangerous” shift began in the 1930’s, Lee said, as the country, paralyzed by the Great Depression turned toward the federal government, thereby increasing its economic role significantly. “People understandably wanted solutions to the Great Depression. It’s understandable why some people approach this from the mistaken viewpoint that it was appropriate for the federal government to do everything that it did during the New Deal era,” Lee explained. But, he went on, “I think that planted some seeds that have proven dangerous over time. A lot of it resulted in our gradual neglect of these core constitutional protections of federalism and separation of powers.” Until the enactment of the New Deal, the country “more or less respected the difference between federal power and state power,” Lee said. “And we more or less recognized and respected the difference between legislative, executive and judicial power. That started to fray during the New Deal era, when we started pulling more and more responsibilities of government away from the American people and to Washington, D.C. “This, in turn, has created a lot of other problems because when Congress found itself all of a sudden having all this power, Congress realized that it couldn’t make that much law,” the senator added. Prior to that time, a law had to be passed in the House of Representatives, later passed in the Senate, and then submitted to the President of the United States for signature or veto, Lee explained. “If the President vetoes, it and it doesn’t become law unless two-thirds of both houses override that veto,” he said, adding “We’ve deviated dangerously from that formula over the last 80 years.” Click here to watch this Fox Nation 101 series, and to sign up.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is exactly right.  We really need to get back to basics and teach American civics.  If more Americans actually knew the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we wouldn’t be having many of the issues we’re having today.  As it relates to what Sen. Lee is talking about here.. the particular Amendment that comes to mind is the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which states, ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  In other words..  If the Constitution doesn’t specify that a function belongs to the federal government, then the federal government has NO authority in that area, and those powers/functions belong to the states.  That is the one Amendment to the Constitution in our great Bill of Rights that Congress routinely violates and ignores and nobody says anything.  IF we actually adhered to that amendment, we wouldn’t have a U.S. Dept of Education and a slew of other cabinet-level agencies.  Ironically, ever since Pres. Jimmy Carter (D) created the U.S. Dept of Education as a payoff to the teachers unions who helped get him elected, education in this country has tanked.  Again, if we followed the rulebook (i.e. the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights), we’d be doing MUCH better.  And, if more Americans knew these founding documents, and were taught actual American civics, we would be throwing a LOT of the bums in Washington D.C. out on their butts in the next election.  We recommend the following book:  “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, which you can get in paperback on Amazon.com for under $20.  Great read!!

How well do you know America’s founding documents? Watch ‘Fox Nation 101: The Constitution’

The new series “Fox Nation 101: The Constitution” explains the history and significance of one of America’s founding documents: The Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government, penned in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It was brought about by necessity. “As of the summer of 1787, when the Founders came together in Philadelphia, they understood that we wouldn’t survive as a country,” explained Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Fox Nation show. The United States declared independence on July 4, 1776, laying out the reasoning behind the war fought by the people of the original 13 colonies to free themselves from the Kingdom of Great Britain. Now, the new nation had to determine how to govern itself. “The biggest challenge for the Americans was that they no longer had a king. They no longer had a monarch,” said Randy Barnett, director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. “They had what was known at the time and is still known as a republic, meaning it was a nation that was set up to be ruled in some sense, more or less by the people themselves,” he continued. “And that created well-known historical challenges because most republics in history were either weak or had otherwise failed.” The first attempt to create a government to secure the ideals of the Declaration of Independence was the Articles of Confederation. “Following the Revolution, we instinctively and reflexively went to a very limited national government and we adopted something under the Articles of Confederation that was anemic at the federal level,” said Lee, observing that the fledging United States could not effectively defend itself from foreign enemies or resolve disputes between states. “That’s why we needed the Constitution,” he observed. “We found how to strike a more appropriate balance between a federal government that was powerful enough to do what needed to be done at the national level. But not so powerful as to jeopardize individual liberty.” The Founders were students of history and recent victims of the tyranny of a monarch, so they understood that any form of government that preserved the rights of its people must ensure that no single group came to dominate the rest. “This is one of the central messages that we gained from the American revolutionary experience,” remarked Lee. One solution to this conundrum is the separation of powers laid out in the first three articles of the Constitution. The three main functions of government were delineated to three separate and equal branches of government. The Legislative branch makes federal laws. The Executive branch, headed by the president, enforces and executes the laws. The Judicial branch interprets the laws and resolves any conflicts between parties who cannot agree on what the law actually means. “The genius of our constitutional system is that as long as you protect and preserve these structural protections, you prevent any one person or any one group of people from accumulating too much power,” said Lee. Barnett noted that this system of government inherently leads to clashes among the branches of government, as well as between individuals, state governments and the federal government, which is its intention. “If you have the legislature checking the executive branch, the president, and you have the president checking the legislature by means of veto power, and if you have the judiciary checking all the branches of government, and then you superimpose that over a federal system – in which you have 50 states that to some extent are checking the federal government and the federal government is certainly checking them – this is a recipe for conflict,” he said. “But that conflict is a feature, not a bug, of the U.S. Constitution.” Click here for more:

Normally we don’t use this forum to plug other mediums or shows.  But, we’ll make an exception here.  This program is excellent!  Thanks to the good folks at Fox Nation for all their efforts putting this together for us!       🙂

READ: The Declaration of Independence

“In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Doesn’t that give you chills?!?  That great document was nailed to a tree in all thirteen colonies/states, and was the ultimate finger to Great Britain.  Please consider this your Read of the Day.”  If you only read one thing here at The Daily Buzz, then READ THIS!..and then forward it on to all of your friends and family members…and be sure to fly your American Flag proudly.  Happy Independence Day!!    🙂

Trump, in fiery Mount Rushmore address, decries rise of ‘far-left fascism,’ calls on Americans to rise up

Speaking after the legendary U.S. Navy Blue Angels roared overhead, President Trump ushered in the July 4th weekend Friday night at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota with a full-throated condemnation of “far-left fascism” and a defense of “Judeo-Christian principles.” “This monument will never be desecrated,” Trump declared to cheers and applause. “These heroes will never be defaced. Their legacy will never, ever be destroyed. Their achievements will never be forgotten. And Mount Rushmore will stand forever as an eternal tribute to our forefathers and to our freedom.” The president asserted that recent attacks on the nation’s monuments, alongside “cancel culture” and the rise of the Marxist ideology of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, were symptoms of a “left-wing cultural revolution” that was threatening to “overthrow the American Revolution.” BLM explicitly advocates the destruction of the “nuclear family structure,” which Trump said was in fact the “bedrock of American life.” “We only kneel to Almighty God,” Trump remarked, in a clear shot at athletes who kneel in protest during the national anthem. “We will not be intimidated by bad, evil people. It will not happen.” “We are the country of Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Frederick Douglass,” Trump said. “We are the land of Wild Bill Hickock and Buffalo Bill Cody. We are the nation that gave rise to the Wright Brothers, the Tuskegee Airmen — Harriet Tubman, Clara Barton, Jesse Owens, George Patton — General George Patton — the great Louie Armstrong, Alan Shepard, Elvis Presley, and Mohammad Ali. And only America could have produced them all. No other place.” Americans are the ones, Trump added, “that put up the Hoover Dam, laid down the highways, and sculpted the skyline of Manhattan. We are the people who dreamed a spectacular dream — it was called: Las Vegas, in the Nevada desert; who built up Miami from the Florida marsh; and who carved our heroes into the face of Mount Rushmore. Americans harnessed electricity, split the atom, and gave the world the telephone and the Internet. We settled the Wild West, won two World Wars, landed American astronauts on the Moon — and one day very soon, we will plant our flag on Mars.” The United States “gave the world the poetry of Walt Whitman, the stories of Mark Twain, the songs of Irving Berlin, the voice of Ella Fitzgerald, the style of Frank Sinatra — the comedy of Bob Hope, the power of the Saturn V rocket, the toughness of the Ford F-150 — and the awesome might of the American aircraft carriers,” Trump said. “Americans must never lose sight of this miraculous story.” “We will state the truth in full, without apology: We declare that the United States of America is the most just and exceptional nation ever to exist on Earth,” Trump said. “We are proud of the fact that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and we understand that these values have dramatically advanced the cause of peace and justice throughout the world.” Trump, who separately praised police officers and vowed to defend the Second Amendment, then announced plans to create “a new monument to the giants of our past.” He said he would sign an executive order to establish the “National Garden of American Heroes” — a “vast outdoor park” to feature the statues of the “greatest Americans to ever live.” After Trump spoke, the White House released text of an executive order establishing the garden, which expressly notes that it will include only lifelike representations and eschew “modernist or abstract interpretations.” A preliminary list of people to be honored in the garden includes John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, MLK, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Ronald Reagan, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Antonin Scalia, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, Jackie Robinson, Christopher Columbus, Junipero Serra, and Betsy Ross In his address, Trump characterized endemic efforts to terminate and humiliate dissent as a form of “totalitarianism” and an “attack on our magnificent liberty” — and promised that it “will be stopped very quicky.” “One of their political weapons is ‘Cancel Culture’ — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees,” Trump said. “This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America. This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly. We will expose this dangerous movement, protect our nation’s children, end this radical assault, and preserve our beloved American way of life.” The “violent mayhem we have seen in our streets and cities,” which are “run by liberal Democrats in every case,” Trump said, “is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism and other cultural institutions. Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country and to believe that the men and women who built it weren’t heroes, but villains. The radical view of American history is a web of lies.”

What an excellent speech!  For more, click on the text above.      🙂

Poll: 3-in-4 Voters, Majority of Black Americans Oppose Tearing Down Mount Rushmore

The overwhelming majority of likely U.S. voters, including a majority of black Americans, oppose the tearing down of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial featuring Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln, a poll finds. While rioters, as well as some Republican and Democrat lawmakers, have sought to remove monuments, statues, and flags associated with the Civil War and the nation’s presidents, the overwhelming majority of Americans say they are opposed to such plans. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds 75 percent of likely U.S. voters oppose closing or changing Mt. Rushmore in Keystone, South Dakota. Less than 20 percent said they support the removal of Mt. Rushmore. By a 56-percent majority, black Americans said they oppose tearing down Mt. Rushmore, while only about 35 percent said they support removing the monument. Likewise, more than six-in-ten Democrats, 76 percent of swing voters, 82 percent of white Americans, and 88 percent of Republican voters said they oppose tearing down Mt. Rushmore. The Rasmussen Reports survey also asked likely voters if they opposed or supported removing statues in honor of Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from public places. More than 70 percent of all likely voters said they opposed tearing down statues dedicated to the two men. Majorities in every racial, income, age, gender, political, and educational attainment group said they oppose tearing down statues and buildings honoring Washington and Jefferson — including 54 percent of black Americans, 78 percent of white Americans, 57 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of Republicans, and 75 percent of swing voters. For years, Americans by huge majorities have opposed a post-structuralist agenda to tear down and remake the nation’s historical monuments and statues. In a 2017 Rasmussen Reports survey, nearly 90 percent of Americans said they oppose tearing down monuments honoring former presidents. The poll surveyed 1,000 likely U.S. voters from June 29 to 30 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

The idea of desecrating, or tearing down, Mount Rushmore is a sentiment held only by these who just hate America in general, and those idiot millennial punks who have been bain-washed by their Marxist teachers into thinking that our history is evil and racist all around…and who never were really taught American civics in school.  Glad the silent majority is still opposed to tearing down our history.  But, that silent majority now more than ever needs to stand up and fight back against these punks who are trying to tear our country down.

Analysis: Fact Check: No, Democrats — The Electoral College Was Not Created Because of Slavery

Democrats are complaining about the Electoral College once again. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who is running for president, told a CNN town hall on Monday night in Mississippi that she wanted to abolish it because it meant that candidates avoided states that were not “battleground states.” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) followed suit on Tuesday, telling CNN the Electoral College was “conceived in sin” to “perpetuat[e] slavery.” Fact Check: FALSE. They are both wrong. The Electoral College is an institution created by Article II of the Constitution for the election of the president. It provides that each state will appoint a certain number of “electors,” equal to the number of representatives it has in Congress (House plus Senate). The electors are to meet in their respective states and cast their votes for president. The votes from all the states are then counted in Congress, and the person who wins a majority is elected president. The primary purpose of the Electoral College was to serve as a brake on populism. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68: “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment” necessary to select a person with “the requisite qualifications,” who would not use “low intrigue” or “little arts of popularity” to sway the masses of the people to support him. In other words, the Electoral College was designed as an anti-populist measure. Over time, the votes of the electors became more or less automatic — that is, all of a state’s electors generally cast their vote for whichever presidential candidate wins the majority of votes in that state. Few were particularly bothered about that, until George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000 despite losing the popular vote. Even after that, Democrats did not change the system. Then came the election of Donald Trump, which Democrats still regard as illegitimate. Many cling to conspiracy theories that Trump somehow conspired with Russia to steal the presidency. The real (non-)secret was that Trump campaigned in Midwestern states Democrats had taken for granted. (Hillary Clinton did not even visit Wisconsin in the general election.) Warren, Cohen, and others now want to undo the system that allowed Trump to win. But their diagnosis of the problem is wrong. The reason candidates avoid states like California, Mississippi, and Massachusetts during the general election campaign has less to do with the Electoral College and more to do with the fact that they consistently choose one party over another. (Candidates do campaign vigorous in those states during the primary stage, and visit wealthy liberal states during the general election to hold political fundraisers.) It is true that a national popular vote would mean that voters who are in the minority in any given state would see their votes “count.” But it is untrue that candidates would therefore spend more time in rural states or small states. Quite the opposite: presidential campaigns would shift to focus on the country’s dense population centers, such as the New York tri-state area and Southern California. Elections would probably be less, not more, representative. As President Trump tweeted Tuesday: “With the Popular Vote, you go to … just the large States – the Cities would end up running the Country. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power.” A national popular vote would also enable cheating. Democrats know the voting rules are loosest in states they control, like California. In the 2018 midterm elections, for example, they used “ballot harvesting,” in which activists delivered thousands of mail-in ballots for other people. The practice is illegal in many states, but Democrats legalized it in California. They want to run up the score there, then use their “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” to award other states’ electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Republicans cannot accept that. Then there is Cohen’s argument about slavery. He claims that the Electoral College was preferred by southern states because it allowed them greater clout than a national popular vote. Northern states could, theoretically, allow all of their adult residents to vote (though few did at the time). Southern states denied slaves the right to vote — but were allowed to count them, due to the infamous three-fifths compromise, in the size of their congressional delegations. That is part of the history of the Electoral College — even after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, when Democrats in the South continued to restrict the right of blacks to vote until the latter half of the twentieth century. But that is not the reason the Electoral College was created, and at this stage it has no effect whatsoever on the way we elect presidents. (Arguably, it is Democrats today that want to disenfranchise black voters, and other citizens, by counting illegal aliens in the Census toward the apportionment of congressional representatives to the states.) If anything, the current system favors the Democrats, because they are virtually guaranteed to win New York, California, and other large “blue” states with large numbers of electoral votes. (And it is quite possible that if the Electoral College functioned as originally designed, the electors would have stopped Trump from taking office.) The Electoral College is clumsy and archaic. But its replacement would likely be worse. The simple reason Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College is to rig the system so that they cannot lose. It is self-interest masquerading as civic virtue.

Exactly!!  And well said, Joel.  Joel B. Pollak is the author of that outstanding history lesson, and providing such great insight and perspective.  Joel is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.      🙂

Name a Supreme Court justice? More than half of Americans can’t, survey says

If Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court wins approval from the U.S. Senate, he’ll join a very exclusive club — so exclusive, in fact, that he may feel almost anonymous. That’s because more than half of Americans cannot name a single member of the nation’s highest court, according to a recent survey. The C-SPAN/PBS survey, which questioned 1,000 likely voters between Aug. 13-15, found that 52 percent of Americans were unfamiliar with the current eight members of the court. (Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas.) Yet despite the shocking results, the survey marked an improvement over last year, when 57 percent of Americans couldn’t name a single Supreme Court justice. The most identifiable justice, according to this year’s poll, is Ginsburg, known to 25 percent of survey respondents. Interestingly, more men than women — 26 percent to 24 percent — could name the notorius RBG. Generally, self-identified Democrats were better than Republicans at naming members of the court, with 48 percent of Dems able to name at least one justice versus 45 percent for GOPers. Older people were also more likely to name a justice. The majority of adults age 50-64 and those age 65 and older were able to name a single court justice. Gorsuch, who joined the court just last year, was recalled by a mere 6 percent of respondents, despite extensive media coverage of his nomination and confirmation. As for Kavanaugh, President Trump’s pick to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was known to 35 percent of respondents, but unknown to 60 percent.

More evidence that American Civics is not taught in our schools.

Representative government in America began this week — 399 years ago

If you were at Jamestown—the tiny English settlement on the banks of the James River in Virginia—399 years ago this week, you probably would have been aware that something unusual was happening. Over in the rough-hewn, thatch-roofed church building, 22 duly elected settlers, six councilors, and their newly arrived governor, all white males, were braving the intense summer heat to attend the first meeting of the “general Assemblie.” A new English charter a year earlier had authorized formation of this first representative assembly in the dozen-year-old colony, and the new governor, Sir George Yeardley, had seen to the charter’s implementation. It was the beginning of representative democracy in America, the forerunner of our Congress, state legislatures, and other representative bodies. Planted in Virginia a year before the Mayflower arrived from England, representative government would take root firmly, blossom in 13 largely self-governing colonies, and after independence grow into the great tree of American liberty, inspiring similar plantings in much of the world. It hardly seemed like a monumental event at the time. The burgesses met for less than a week, dealt with practical concerns like setting a tobacco price floor, relations with the Indians, and some criminal cases, and then departed one man down. Mr. Shelley of Smyths Hundred grew ill and passed way from the heat. Governor Yeardley and others also fell sick but survived. Representative government is frustrating today, but at least the survival rate has improved. Next year will mark the 400th anniversary of this hugely important, if rudimentary and tragedy-laced, beginning. It will present an opportunity to reflect on how far representative democracy has come and how far it still has to go. In addition to ceremonial events, the 2019 “American Evolution” Commemoration will feature highly substantive dialogues on the challenges confronting representative democracies today.

To learn more, click on the text above.

US Citizenship Test – Could You Pass?

An important part of the application process for becoming a US citizen is passing a civics test, covering important U.S. history and government topics. There are 100 civics questions on the naturalization test. During the interview process, applicants are asked up to 10 questions and must be able to answer at least 6 questions correctly. Here is a sampling of what may be asked. How would you do? Click here and find out!
🙂