Young Dems Assume Fetal Position After Trump Win

Young Democrats and Hillary supporters, devastated after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on Tuesday, are suffering from massive mass depression after the election.


So overwrought are they that they tried to convince their schools to cancel mid-term exams (nice try). The schools have offered them “safe spaces” in which to vent their rage or cry their hearts out.  Service dogs and puppies have been brought in to comfort them and therapists are available to help them cope with their loss.  There is no participation trophy or consolation award to give them.


This is what happens when you raise a generation in a Nanny State. Now the big, bad man is going to make them go to work.  They’ll have to get real jobs.  They’ll have to be responsible citizens.  They’ll have to get used to reality – that adults rule the world.


These are all echoes of the Sixties, which Bill and Hillary Clinton represented. Accommodating these sore losers hearkens back to the days when Yale University provided a trampoline for students to bounce upon.  Hillary Clinton led the fight to replace normal grades with pass-fail grades.


Meanwhile, the more violent types, particularly those illegal immigrants and drug-dealers who will be swiftly deported, are on the march in cities across America, from New York City to San Francisco and Portland, where violence (just as we predicted) would break out if Trump won the election.


Some say it’s cynical to claim that we are a hopelessly divided nation. But we are polarized between Americans who love freedom and those who prefer collectivism.  The latter are adherents of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and even Stalin.  Central and South America, including Mexico, are overrun with collectivists who toe the Marxist line.  Even the most sincerely Conservative students entering college as freshman can be turned, through a mixture of classroom politics, peer pressure, and drugs, into useful idiots.


The creatures we saw protesting in New York City, crawling up Fifth Avenue (I believe) reminded me of the black beetles in the 1999 film The Mummy that consumed their victims in a swarm.


These are people who have sworn their allegiance to drug lords and gangster leaders. They’ve seduced several generations of young people into buying their “product” turning them into more-or-less permanent customers whose judgement is now crippled, almost beyond repair.


Converting them would require a major intervention. Cutting off their supply is a good start.  But a number of states have already legalized recreational marijuana and the federal government will be hard to it to interfere.  The only way to stop it is one that makes most Constitutionalists c cringe – through a Supreme Court intervention.


Perhaps the spectacle of their older brothers and sisters curling up in the fetal position over will make high school students reconsider their college choices, if they haven’t already been brainwashed by the New Establishment school system. Or maybe the American people will reconsider the voting age and insist it be raised to age 21 again through a repeal of the 26th Amendment.


While it’s true that if a citizen is old enough to be drafted into the military, then they’re old enough to vote, adult American has the right to question whether an 18 year-old is mature enough to vote. The post-election behavior of the current young generation is a prime example.  They’re no longer considered old enough to drink.  They can’t handle the vote, either, it appears.


One of the issues they protest is the Electoral College. Students and Millennial voters believe the Electoral College should be abolished.  Their reaction to the election is precisely why the Founding Fathers established it in the first place.


Explaining the creation and purpose of the U.S. Constitution in The Federalist Papers, as series of essays written by  James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, they address the necessity of an electoral college, by which the U.S. Senate (before the 17th Amendment) and the Presidency would be determined by a proportionally-elected set of state representatives.


In paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote:


The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.  I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.  It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages of the union of which was to be desired.


It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chose by the people for the special purpose, and at that particular juncture.


It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by the men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation.


It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.   But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration promise an effectual security against this mischief.  The choice of several to form an intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.  And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.


Nothing was more to be desired that that every practical obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.  But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort with the most provident and judicious attention.  They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.  And they have excluded from the eligibility to this trust all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.  No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States can be the number of the electors.


Thus, without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.  The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.  Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives which, thought they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.


Another and no less important desideratum was that the executive should be independent in his office on all but the people themselves.   He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence.  This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making this important choice.


All these advantages will be happily combined in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.


Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to center on one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall elect out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.


Hamilton goes on to cite the moral virtues requisite of a man to be placed in such a high office and the dangers in men of low intrigue (such as candidates who force open sealed files to expose another candidate’s personal life) and the little arts of popularity (calling upon friends in the media to populate their publications with artfully slanted pictures of the candidate and family), “may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish in the establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”


The Sixties made a hash of morality and integrity in the United States. Chain immigration introduced into the country a flood of immigrants more interested in the largesse of a bureaucratic government than the opportunities a free, capitalist economy offered.  Yet another president seeded the White House with anarchistic nihilists who openly sought the downfall of the United States from within.  The final blow to morality and integrity came with an avowedly Marxist president whose campaign was based on the redistribution of wealth, a marked hatred of the middle class suburbs, and a decidedly un-American disdain for the U.S. Constitution itself.


The election of Donald Trump is a repudiation of those seeking to “change” the United States from a representative republic to an open-society democracy where law and order are obliviated, justice is turned on its head to serve social engineering rather than democracy, and morality is vanquished.


No wonder those who voted for Hillary Clinton are in a near-catatonic state. They held out some hope when, in his meeting with President Obama, President-Elect Trump declared that he agreed with some of Obama’s ideas.  Those ideas, it turned out, pertained to the elements of Obamacare that protect those with pre-existing conditions and early college graduates who may be having difficulty, in this economy, getting a job.


Trump’s supporters can now breathe a sigh of relief, in that not only have they not been betrayed, but their champion supports the same changed element of New Age healthcare whose previous incarnation had frustrated them for decades, the same element Republicans had supported and which they belatedly admitted they were wrong in upholding.


Thomas Jefferson said that only an educated populace could sustain a democratic form of government. The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceful protest.  Where great throngs gather, tough, the danger increases that violence will break out.


All violence needs is the match of agitation to strike the flint of ignorance in order to create a brawl.




Published in: on November 12, 2016 at 1:27 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: