Whatever questionable choices were made at the Republican National Convention last week, I didn’t hear of a single speaker whose sole accomplishment was raising a delinquent who attacked a cop.
But as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.
Welcome to Hillary’s convention, celebrating the anti-police group Black Lives Matter!
The whole raison d’etre of BLM is the belief that cops are wantonly killing “black bodies.” But only four of the dead black kids being honored were even killed by cops. Two were murdered by black gang members. Of the four deaths that involved the police, all the victims were fighting the cops when they died.
In this regard, I notice that six of the nine “Mothers of the Movement” have different last names from their snowflakes. The children with the same names as their mothers were the two who were gunned down by black gangs, as well as one schizophrenic, who, unfortunately, had grabbed an officer’s baton and was hitting him with it when he got himself shot.
After massive, enormously expensive investigations, only one officer in any of these four cases was convicted of any offense: involuntary manslaughter for the 2009 shooting by a BART police officer of Oscar Grant — who was in the process of being arrested for an enormous public brawl when he was shot.
Contrast his death with the deaths of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton and 16-year-old Blair Holt. Hadiya was shot in the back by black gang members, while in a Chicago park with her friends — who were mistaken for members of a rival gang. Blair was riding a school bus when a black gang member boarded the bus and began shooting.
The police are trying get these criminal gangs off the street! And their job would be a lot easier without thugs like Mike Brown violently attacking them.
It would be a lot easier if they weren’t being constantly harassed by BLM and their lunatic accusations of racist policing.
It would be a lot easier if they were not being targeted for assassination and mass murders by homicidal nuts ginned up by BLM. (Shooting deaths of police are up 78 percent so far this year.)
And it would be a lot easier without a group — officially supported by the Democrats — leading marches down city streets, chanting, “What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!”
Why does the Democratic platform endorse Black Lives Matter? And, most importantly, why was Mike Brown’s mother on stage at the Democratic National Convention? As absurd as BLM’s other cases are, none have been so authoritatively disproved as the yarn about “gentle giant” Brown begging for his life from Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson before being shot in the street like a dog.
Within a few weeks of the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative being broadcast as fact from every media outlet, we saw the video of the “gentle giant” robbing a store and roughing up the clerk shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson.
This was followed by extensive investigations by both a grand jury and a Department of Justice led by the most racist, anti-police attorney general we’ve ever had, Eric Holder. But even Holder’s Justice Department had to concede the whole “hands up don’t shoot” story was a bald-faced lie.
Officer Wilson was completely cleared in the shooting of Mike Brown. As the investigations proved, Big Mike had violently assaulted Wilson, grabbed for his gun, and was charging the officer when Wilson shot and killed this raging behemoth.
However half-heartedly, Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?
Because of the despicable lies put out by BLM agitators, Wilson had to give up his career, move his family and will be forced to live in fear for the rest of his life. The town of Ferguson was destroyed, businesses burned to the ground, police officers attacked, people injured, the National Guard called in, and massive taxpayer money expended to contain the riots.
But at the Democratic Convention, Lezley McSpadden (mother of Mike Brown) was wildly cheered.
Eric Holder said Brown tried to kill a cop. Are Democrats insane?
If Brown’s mother had done something noteworthy, apart from raising a hoodlum — perhaps pioneering a cardiac stent that will save people’s lives — then one could understand her being a “headliner” at the Democrat’s convention. But, as I understand it, her sole claim to fame is giving birth to, and then carefully nurturing, a violent, cop-assaulting criminal.
Donald Trump, along with every other Republican ever to run for president, is required to repeatedly “disavow” David Duke — someone he’s never met, never mentioned, never thought of— and certainly didn’t invite to speak at his convention. But Hillary invites to her convention the mother of a man whose criminality destroyed a police officer’s life, tore the country apart and gave birth to a murderous cop-hating movement. Will a single reporter ask Hillary to disavow that?
Wanted, Dead or Alive
Rob Morse is a high tech geek who left California for Louisiana. He writes and podcasts about technology and society.
A 
What Did You Say? 
Clinton appears to have won the national popular vote in 2016, primarily fueled by massive landslides in populous Democratic states like California and New York. This has sparked efforts to do away with the state-based and not entirely democratic Electoral College.
Though a huge part of the anti-Electoral College push is sour grapes in the wake of a surprise electoral defeat, it serves the broader interest of the progressive movement’s goal to both delegitimize the incoming administration and subvert the idea of federalism as enshrined in the Constitution.
Electoral College Worked in 2016
The Electoral College was carefully designed by the Founders after lengthy deliberation at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The design is this: Americans don’t cast their vote for president, but instead for electors pledged to their preferred candidate. Each state has a set number of electors based on the total number of representatives and senators. You can read about why the Founders created this seemingly complex system here.
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, who was fairly popular with progressives just a week ago, supported the Electoral College process in Federalist 68. He said that “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”
But a number of prominent Democrats have ignored Hamilton and called for an end to the Electoral College post-election.
Opponents of the Electoral College claim that the institution is fundamentally flawed. The fact that the winner of the most recent presidential contest didn’t have the highest total vote further demonstrates why it needs to be scrapped, according to their logic.
This narrative couldn’t be farther from the truth, as the issues surrounding the election prove exactly why the Electoral College is such an excellent system for the United States.
For instance, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is leading a movement to recount votes in three key states that Trump won: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This was in part justified by the idea that Russia had tampered with the election.
The recount process will likely be messy, but it would be vastly more complicated if America had to undergo a national as opposed to state-level recount. Votes have trickled in for the last month, and it is possible that without the state-based system it might still be unclear who the next president would be.
As ugly as the 2016 election was, it would have been far uglier without the moderating, stable process afforded by the Electoral College.
Having states conduct their own elections is a strength of our system, not a weakness. For instance, without the Electoral College and respect for state powers, it would be difficult for America to experiment with solutions to prevent voter fraud. This should be a priority for those suddenly concerned about voting integrity.
Assault on Federalism
What is lost in the Electoral College debate is the underlying attack on America’s cherished and inherited idea of federalism.
The Founders in their wisdom designed this republic with the intent of checking ambition with ambition, and delegating specific powers to both the national as well as state governments. They created a nation in which states could operate independently, experimenting with different policies and laws to fit their people.
The elimination of the Electoral College would be just another blow to the role of the states in the American system of government. No longer would presidential candidates have to appeal to the farmers of rural Iowa alongside the bankers of urban New York. They would be incentivized to campaign directly to the interests of the largest population centers alone.
The reasoning used to abolish the Electoral College could easily be applied to some of the most important aspects of America’s constitutional republic.
If the Electoral College is simply an ancient, undemocratic, and defunct relic of the Founding, then why isn’t the Senate? After all, treating the states equally and allowing them only two senators regardless of population is silly if one thinks the states hold no special place in our system. One writer was open about this in a Washington Post op-ed calling for abolishing the states entirely.
Samuel concluded:
This is the essential issue at the heart of the Electoral College that extends far beyond the results of a single election.
The left wants to fundamentally change the system of federalism so venerated and protected by the founding generation. But those who believe that the United States was built on timeless ideas about man’s relation to man should look to preserve the system that allowed America to rise to the status of a superpower while preserving individual liberty.