Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have spent years fomenting and enabling yesterday’s violence at the Capitol. Policymakers need to do something about it.
The 7 types of rest that every person needs
Inside the Covid ward
Trump Phone Call, Julian Assange & Free Speech
Another Sort of Reset
Posted: 30 Dec 2020 03:05 PM PST
["Essential" simply means "important" to Governor Cuomo.]
We are entering the eleventh month of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this span, Governor Cuomo has exercised absolute authority over every aspect of life in New York. We should stop pretending he is motivated by #science. Cuomo, like every politician, acts like a politician. Racial justice marches are essential. But 11 Jews praying in synagogue that fits 1,000 people is forbidden. Cuomo does whatever he thinks he can get away with.
Now, for the first time in a quarter century, the Buffalo Bills have made the NFL playoffs. And, Governor Cuomo will permit nearly 7,000 fans watch the game:
As we know all too well, tests are not always accurate. And people may contract the virus after taking the test. If the state's goal was to keep transmission as close to zero as possible, no one would consider this feat. But that isn't the state's sole goal. "Essential" simply means "important" to Governor Cuomo. And Cuomo was not willing to accept the wrath of football fans in upstate New York. Orthodox Jews–who tend to vote Republican–are simply not that important.
Cuomo would be wise not to appeal the recent Agudath Israel decision to the Supreme Court. His Solicitor General will be asked about the Bills game.
The Silence of Christmas Markets
Silence and darkness have replaced joy and merriment this year, as local governments have suppressed public gatherings out of fear of COVID-19. For the first time since World War II, German, Austrian, and French town squares are hauntingly silent and joyless in this season. Microbes have halted fairy-tale like celebrations which bolster not only the human spirit but also human economies.
The world awaits a savior-vaccine. But the very absence of Christmas markets reminds us of the fuller humanity celebrated in the exuberance of age-old festivities and crowded family dining room tables.
We have done much in the effort to preserve individual physical health, but extraordinarily little to preserve the spiritual and emotional health of our communities.
I have hesitated to blog because it is so disturbing how fast change is occurring. Life is increasingly worthless.
Old White Lives Don’t Matter
Every US state has been advised to consider ethnic minorities as a critical and vulnerable group in their vaccine distribution plans, according to Centers for Disease Control guidance.
As a result, half of the nation’s states have outlined plans that now prioritize black, Hispanic and indigenous residents over white people in some way, as the vaccine rollout begins.
According to our analysis, 25 states have committed to a focus on racial and ethnic communities as they decided which groups should be prioritized in receiving a coronavirus vaccine dose.
Listen for a few minutes
Live Not By Lies: A Discussion with Author Rod Dreher
Woke Capitalism’s US Social Credit System
The Left’s Post-Trump Enemies List
A View From Butovo Field
The De-Catholicization Of Poland
French Islam & Civic Life
Soft Totalitarianism Threatens Scotland
During today’s session, Glasgow Tory MSP and Committee Convenor Adam Tomkins questioned the Scottish Justice Secretary [Hamza Yousaf] on how you can commit an offence of public order in private.
It comes after Mr Yousaf suggested during the committee session that he would be in favour of the stirring up offences applying inside home dwellings.
If that passes, then children who repeat things they hear at home risk informing on their parents.
If that passes, then reading passages aloud at home from the Bible could draw prosecution. In fact, simply having a Bible at home could bring prosecution from the state; possessing hateful materials would be a crime under the proposed law.
This is a bill that, if it became law, would put the Edinburgh-based left-wing author J.K. Rowling in danger of criminal charges because she has stood up for women against transgender ideology.
All of this in the name of turning Scotland into a safe space.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Existentialism)
The Final Goal of Progressives—Dr. Miklos Lukacs
How China Threatens American Democracy | Foreign Affairs
The CCP is increasingly using its leverage to control American speech.
Swiss Evangelical Missionary Executed by Islamic Extremists in Mali After 4 Years in Captivity | CBN News
Facebook Demonetizes Satire Site Babylon Bee, Claims Monty Python Spoof 'Incites Violence'.
Robert Reich Calls For ‘Truth And Reconciliation Commission’ To ‘Erase Trump’s Lies,’ Expose Enablers
They were best friends, then pen pals — until one day, the letters stopped coming
The Death of Max Jacob
"You become a success from an attitude and the work you put into it."
The Bull Rider
Life Below Water: The Arrival of a New Species
The Archbishop’s Silence
Nagorno-Karabakh: Armenia and Azerbaijan's conflict explained
Defending Christian Armenia
CHRISTIAN ARMENIA UNDER ATTACK
California churches challenge the constitutionality of the governor's COVID-19 executive orders as they apply to in-person worship services. District court denies a preliminary injunction, and the churches seek an emergency injunction pending appeal. Ninth Circuit: Denied. Dissent: Attending church is at least as important as going to the mall or getting a pedicure, both of which are allowed.
Jaron Lanier interview on how social media ruins your life - https://youtu.be/kc_Jq42Og7Q
Who owns your data? Jaron Lanier has the answer. - https://youtu.be/RmNCVHcZp5s
How we need to remake the internet | Jaron Lanier - https://youtu.be/qQ-PUXPVlos
Jaron Lanier Fixes the Internet | NYT Opinion - https://youtu.be/Np5ri-KktNs
Jaron Lanier on the Future of Our Digital Lives - https://youtu.be/FwbmlBzLXDk
Is it time for Christianity to go underground? | Holy Smoke
Rod Dreher Interviews: Live Not By Lies
I have watched/istened to the interviews. There are many similarities. The Spectator Interview is the most informative.
The Spectator - https://www.crowdcast.io/e/issoft-totalitarianism
JD Vance and Rod Dreher discuss LIVE NOT BY LIES: A Manual for Christian Dissidents - https://youtu.be/hqyn9G0GImA
Matt Lewis Podcast - https://youtu.be/caQsreT755w
World Over - 2020-10-01 - Rod Dreher with Raymond Arroyo - https://youtu.be/FxfvmQhFRQ8
Students vandalize conservative group’s abortion memorial at Texas university
Students at the University of North Texas vandalized an abortion memorial created by the Young Conservatives of Texas on Wednesday, stealing the flags and signs the group put up to raise awareness about the unborn lives lost to abortion.
Kelly Neidert, the president of YCT at UNT, told The Spectator that her group planned to put up 1,000 little pink flags to represent unborn lives and various signs with messages like ‘abortion is murder’, ‘unborn lives matter’, and ‘overturn Roe v. Wade‘ due to the upcoming battle over Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The group received permission from UNT to put up the display, according to communications reviewed by The Spectator. However, the memorial became a target of leftist students on campus before it was even erected. Bella Armenta, the social outreach chair for UNT’s College Democrats club, tweeted that she was looking forward to playing ‘capture the flag’ with the display. Various social media posts from UNT students indicate that they designated teams with captains for the game and encouraged others to post how many flags they were able to steal from the ‘sexist, transphobic, all around horrid’ young conservatives.
Monument to anti-Nazi martyr Alexander Schmorell opens in Orenburg
JD Vance and Rod Dreher discuss LIVE NOT BY LIES: A Manual for Christian Dissidents
Virginia Forces Christian Ministries to Adopt 'Government Ideology' or Pay $100K
Refugees from tyranny agree: Authoritarian threat in America now is from the left
"Earlier, the UOJ wrote that the Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, Christoph Schönborn, "dreams" that Hagia Sophia will become a "meeting place of religions"."
Question. Will Truth be sacrificed at the altar of God? Or at the altar of the Demons?
I strongly encourage all to read the following article.
Wokeness Comes For Dawkins
"Did you see that the Woke at Trinity College Dublin have no-platformed Richard Dawkins, of all people? They are afraid that his criticism of religion will offend, get this, Muslims. Had he come to trash Catholics, they would have been all for it, but we mustn’t cause any distress to Muslims. The Woke are also afraid that Dawkins’s past commentary on sexual harassment could trigger women." https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/wokeness-comes-for-richard-dawkins-sarah-haider-live-not-by-lies/
The historic Orthodox church building Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) recently received considerable international attention when Turkey’s highest administrative court gave the green light for the church’s conversion from a museum to a mosque. (Al Jazeera) The decision was met with widespread criticism or concern by political and religious leaders. (See References below: European Union, U.S. Secretary […]
Another Church Desecrated: St Agatha's in Sicily
Watch the entire video. Focus on 7:10 on the phases of religious persecution.
Yesterday I mention that BLM had scrubbed its website, well now . . .
The NYT 1619 PROJECT has done the same thing!
They lie to hide the truth. They lie to deceive you.
From the Jordan Peterson newletter of the above date.
(Estimated Read: 2 Minutes)
Consider the statement implicit in living together, prior to marriage: “You’re good enough to live with, and attractive enough for temporary sexual purposes, but I want to hold open the possibility of trading up if I’m fortunate enough to find someone preferable to you (someone sufficiently deluded to accept me as a partner, under such conditions).” Contrast that with “I am willing to stake my future on our joint integrity, and to risk building a life with you on that foundation.” If you had to choose between two potential partners on the basis of those alternate explicitly stated principles—one abiding by the former; the other, the latter—whom would you choose?
It only serves to increase my distrust and confirm: They are still Marxists
BLM quietly scrubs anti-American, Marxist language from its website
Black Lives Matter has changed its messaging, scrubbing their rhetoric in favour of disrupting the nuclear family from their site.
With little fanfare, Black Lives Matter removed a section of text that had been under a section called "What We Believe" that sought to engender the destruction, or perhaps reimagining, of the nuclear family structure.
The section read: "We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
"We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts. We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work 'double shifts' so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and 'villages' that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
Couched in language about liberation, this section intended to foster the idea that a person's immediate, nuclear family, mother, father, sisters, brothers, is less important than the movement.
Many people who first became aware of BLM over the summer caught wind of this language, and found themselves put off by an organization that espouses Marxist principles of communal children and the demise of the family structure over American ideals of individualism and family unity. Jack Brewer pointed it out at the RNC.
After the public read the belief statement from BLM, and lambasted them, pushback against that began. Fact checking group PolitiFact said that BLM didn't say they wanted to disrupt the nuclear family, even though BLM wrote down that they did and published it on their website.
In fact checking the claims that BLM wants to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure," which BLM said on their site, PolitiFact said that they basically didn't say that, writing: "We found that while Black Lives Matter seeks change in how 'family' is defined, especially with respect to public policy, it's a leap to conclude that it wants to eliminate traditional family structures."
The Facebook employed fact-checker said that claims that BLM said that they want to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" were untrue, basically because factcheckers don't think that's what BLM really meant, even though they thought of it, wrote it down, coded it, and published it on their site.
One article from Jelani Greenidge states that he also doesn't think BLM founders actually meant what they said. Instead, he writes that:
"I don't think that either Cullens, Garza or Tometi actually think that families are better off without two parents. Even if they're radical enough to actually believe that, that’s not really what this statement says. It says they reject the requirement of two-parent nuclear family structures as being the only structures to be considered valid and worth celebrating, honoring or protecting. I think what they're saying is that the aunties, grandmas, grandpas, uncles, baby daddies, older cousins, step cousins and play cousins that all tend to spring up to help form extended families are crucial to helping young people survive in an era where so many Black men have become the casualties of racially-biased mass incarceration."
The only problem with that is that it isn't what they said. If discrimination against alternative family structures is what BLM is against then that's what they should have said.
The missive is now gone from the site, though it's available in the archive of the internet, which never forgets a misstep. It has been replaced with something much less incendiary:
"We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements."
This tendency we have to try to assume that people and organizations mean what we want them to mean instead of what their actual statements say results in intentional misunderstandings. BLM made statements about the necessity of disrupting the nuclear family. If they didn't mean that, they shouldn't have said it. And if they did mean it, and do, they should address it.
And archbishops march with them.
Forgive me for my pessimism and distrust.
The article states...
"...it’s important that powerful new structures of morality are regulated [Question begged: "By whom?"] to acknowledge how prone to emotion and error all of us are [Recalls Communist/Maoist self-confessions of culpability], while always keeping the door clearly open to redemption for those who err [Question begged: "Who decides?"]. Failing that, the alternative isn’t exactly encouraging. Fired with zeal by new ideologies, we could end up on a path that leads to us shaming and damning one another as immoral heretics with the same intensity that inquisitorial religion once did [Yes, of course.]. Even worse, since many emerging beliefs are based on evolving preferences rather than agreed upon first principles, we risk leaving people at the mercy of a disorienting permanent moral flux [Oh yes!]. Without solid guidance on how best to live and interact, we might simply start avoiding each other." [And who is going to give the guidance? Man? We're doomed.]"
And the article ends with...
"In a recent essay on our ambiguous new moral landscape, the British professor and author Alec Ryrie wrote the following:
We know what evil is [Oh really? - by what standard of measure?], but we’re not so sure what goodness is. We can agree what to demonstrate against, but not what to demonstrate for. We know what we hate [And therein is the problem: hate is not a virtue; it is an evil], but not what we love. And it is no good to say that what we value is everyone’s right to choose their own values, not when at the same time we are trying to unite in condemning the values we have collectively decided are unacceptable. It is one of the reasons we have become so susceptible to purity spirals. We are free to explore our own values—that is, until we step over a shifting line, or it steps over us, and suddenly we are not.
If we are going to develop new moral codes for public life, as we seem to be doing in many spheres, we should do it with the self-conscious idea of improving on the mistakes of organized religion [Bingo! And now the target is identified: organized religion]. Finding new ways to treat each other terribly, or to tar each other with the shame of sin while denying the prospect of redemption, hardly seems appealing. Above all we should avoid falling into the trap of denying mercy and understanding to others, even when they fall outside our evolving ideas of virtue.
This is the French Revolution again, again, and again evolving into man's failed ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries.
When trust is broken...you definitely need to leave the island.
It's not about politics. It's about morality. It's about our faith. It's about truth and The Truth Who is a reality.
What is truth?
[Note. Many years ago when working in the government sector my analytical team came up with a conclusion that was contrary to reality. I asked, "What is the truth?" The answer I received was, "Whatever we decide." The team was young, liberal, and ignorant of their ignorance. They would make good neighbors, but it would be at a cost. Yet, in my own way I loved them all.]
[Yet we still pose the question to religious leaders, "What is the truth?" And they answer, "Whatever we decide."]
Note that Marx began with an emphasis on the “struggle” against religion, which was a rather negative way to frame humanity’s relationship with religion. This was a “struggle against religion” that he contended was merely man-made. Like his socialist friend Mikhail Bakunin (who, like Saul Alinsky, hailed Lucifer as “the eternal rebel, the first freethinker”), Marx insisted that man badly needs emancipation. Religion is an artifice of man, he surmised, a creation not of God but of man. Man thus makes religion because he pathetically needs religion. This is a man who has already “lost himself” and thus requires “religion.” The state and society “produce religion,” which is a deformed, “inverted consciousness of the world.” This, the struggle against religion, is also a “struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.” This is why people crave religion as a kind of drug, or opiate, or “opium.” Marx coldly assessed: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
. . .
"\Marx next used three crucial words he would also use in the Communist Manifesto: “abolition of religion.” Given what he had said in the previous line, he thus said (not surprisingly) that “the abolition of religion” is necessary for people to achieve “real happiness,” especially given that their clinging to religion (to borrow a description from Barack Obama, who in 2008 spoke sneeringly of Americans “clinging to their God”) is a mere “illusory happiness.” Source.
Do All Black Lives Matter? (Ideology aside)
[Note. Or just some black lives matter. I would pray "all." Especially the unborn and the generations they would bequeath to humanity.]
Posted: 08 Sep 2020 02:50 PM PDT
Lawyers for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to leave in place a lower-court order that allows patients, during the coronavirus pandemic, to avoid a requirement that they visit a medical office in order to obtain a pill used to induce abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. The Food and Drug Administration has asked the justices to freeze that order and reinstate the federal requirement that the drug be picked up in person from a health care provider. The dispute is the latest battle in which the justices have been asked to intervene on an emergency basis in an issue arising from the pandemic.
. . .
ACOG also stressed that abortion patients as a group are especially vulnerable to COVID-19, both because they are pregnant and because most patients seeking abortions are people of color, who are at heightened risk for serious illness or death from the virus.
[Lord may the scourge of abortions end!]
While the desert fathers chanted, recited, and chewed on biblical texts, they saw scripture less as something to be talked about than as something to be done. | William Harmless
Our government wasn’t built to force men to be moral.
[Note. And isn't it our problem today? - a secular fluid religion in which morality is self-defined. The American social compact is broken.]
I’m going to begin with my two favorite quotes from two American founders—the two quotes that I believe set up the fundamental nature of the American social compact. The first is the most famous. It’s Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “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.”
He didn’t stop there, however. The very next words are key: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The meaning is clear. Each and every human being possesses God-given rights, and a fundamental purpose of government is to protect those rights. That’s the government’s side of the social compact, and these aspirational words were operationalized in the Bill of Rights. The Declaration is the American mission statement. The Constitution made it law.
But there’s another side to the American social compact. We know the obligation of the government, but what about the obligation of the citizen? Here’s where we turn to Thomas Jefferson’s rival, John Adams. And Adams gives us the second quote that frames our constitutional republic. Writing to the Massachusetts militia, he says, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
But that’s not all he said. In a less-famous section, he wrote, “We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.” Our government wasn’t built to force men to be moral. Instead, it depends on man’s morality for the system to work. Source.($) (Subscription: Christians, Gun Rights, and the American Social Compact, by David French, Sep 6, 2020.)
How the Left Will Win - Eventually
[Note: Happening now. It's a collusion of State legislatures to undermine 244 years of tradition. And the nation will be forever as extremely liberal as it desires.]
Posted: 03 Sep 2020 02:05 PM PDT
[Those of you who dislike the Electoral College should find this idea of interest]
UC Berkeley professor Michael Eisen has been involved in a number of initially-crazy-sounding projects over the years, an alarming number of which (open access to scientific publication (PLOS), home genetic sequencing (23andme), plant-based "meat" (Impossible Foods) have actually borne much fruit. Here is his latest—he himself calls it "disturbing and terrifying."
Eisen's idea is a variation on the "National Popular Vote" (NPV) scheme. For those of you unfamiliar with how NPV works, the basic idea is as follows (and many more details are available at the NPV website here):
A State—let's call it New York—enacts a statute with two basic provisions:
1. The Governor shall appoint, as presidential electors, the slate of electors submitted by the presidential candidate who receives the largest number of votes cast nationwide in the presidential election. [Currently, of course, it is the candidate winning a plurality of votes cast in NY who gets all of NY's electors.]
2. Paragraph (1) shall only come into effect if and when a sufficient number of other States enact laws with the identical Paragraph (1) provision to cumulatively account for 270 (or more) electoral votes.
You have to admit, whatever your position might be on whether the Electoral College is or is not a useful institution, that it's a devilishly clever scheme. Without the need for a constitutional amendment, but relying instead on the power granted to the States in Article II to "appoint [electors] in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," it would guarantee that the Electoral College would elect the winner of the nationwide popular vote, once the 270-electoral-vote threshold were met.
The NPV statute has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions, accounting cumulatively for 196 electoral votes (CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA), leaving it 74 electoral votes short of the trigger. In nine additional states with 88 additional electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, VA) the NPV statute has passed in one house (but not the other) of the state legislature.
One obstacle which makes it difficult for the NPV to achieve the required level of support is the diminishing incentive for the "swing states"—the states that, in the current scheme, hold virtually all of the power in the presidential election (OH, PA, WI, FL, MI, VA, NC)—to join in the NPV scheme. The swing states are "swing" precisely because, unlike CA and AL and NY and KS and …, their electorates are pretty evenly divided between the two parties; because the NPV initiative is widely—though perhaps wrongly—seen as favoring the "blue" team at the expense of the "reds," the political battle over the NPV, and the political opposition to joining with the NPV States, are likely to be particularly intense in these swing states.
Moreover, precisely because these are the States that effectively hold all the power in the current scheme, they might well be unwilling to give up that power by joining the NPV coalition. Votes, and voters, in the swing states matter a lot more, in the current presidential election environment, than the votes and voters in NY or AL or CA or KS. The presidential candidates—both of them—will be paying an enormous amount of attention to the voters in swing states. The issues about which swing state voters are concerned will be front and center in the campaign—and the hundreds of millons, if not billions, of dollars that the candidates will be pouring into their states during the campaign, ain't bad, either.
And if you think about it, as the NPV gets closer and closer to the 270 trigger, the "swing states" who don't join in get even more power (and a bigger slice of those advertising dollars) than they have now. Imagine if, say, PA (20 electoral votes), MI (16), and VA (13) had enacted the NPV statute. The total would now stand at 196+49=245—a mere 25 votes short. The voters in these states (PA, MI and VA) would now be just like voters in NY and AL; their votes would count (for purposes of the national popular vote), but they would no longer get any special additional weight from having come from a "swing state." On the other hand, the non-joining swing states—FL, OH, WI, NC—become even swing-ier than before, with even more attention being paid to corralling their contested electoral votes than before.
If you are a supporter of the NPV, this is not a great position to be in; as the network of joining states gets larger, those states that have not yet joined are under more of a disincentive to join. It's a kind of negative feedback, and negative feedback's not the best way to grow a network.
Enter Mike Eisen. Here's what he's proposing as a substitute for the current NPV statute:
1. The Governor shall appoint, as presidential electors, the slate of electors submitted by the presidential candidate who receives the largest number of votes cast, in the aggregate pool of voters in those states (the "Joining States") that have enacted a paragraph identical to this one.
2. Paragraph (1) shall only come into effect when the cumulative electoral votes in the Joining States equals or exceeds 270.
Notice how this works. The States enacting this revised NPV law would be agreeing (once the 270 trigger is achieved) to pool their votes with all the other States that have signed onto this scheme, and to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality of the pooled votes from those Joining States.
And notice that if this statute ever were to come into effect because the 270-vote threshold was met, it would render the votes in the non-joining states completely worthless; votes from non-joining States would play no part whatsoever in determining whom the Electoral College would select as the next president.
That is, if we were to reach the 270-Electoral-vote trigger point, the Joining States would pool their votes together in a pile, determine the candidate who received the most votes in the entire pool, and then they would all designate their Electors to vote for that candidate. And, under the premise that we had reached the 270-vote trigger, that would be sufficient to elect that candidate president no matter what happened in the other non-Joining States.
I think you can see why Prof. Eisen called this "disturbing." Votes in non-Joining states no longer count at all in determining who gets to be president. Under this scheme, if Ohio does not Join and agree to pool its vote with other Joiners, it runs the risk that enough other States will Join to make Ohio voters completely irrelevant in the presidential election.
And that risk—the risk that the voters in your State will be rendered a total irrelevance the moment the 270 threshold is met—intensifies as the Joiners get closer and closer to 270.
Voila! Positive feedback; the more States that Join, the greater the incentive for non-Joiners to Join, which adds more States to the pool, which increases further the incentive for non-Joiners to Join, and so on.
Could this actually work? Is it really constitutional?
I think the answer to both questions, surprisingly, is "yes." Neither is simple, so I'll save my more detailed thoughts for subsequent postings, and just make these observations:
Whether it would work depends a bit on what it means to "work." If your goal is to create a system under which the winner of the popular vote gets to be president, I think this will do it for you. Notice that under this scheme any non-Joining State can, at any time, enter the ranks of the Joined States. So suppose that Ohio refuses to Join. If the statutory trigger is activated, it faces a simple choice: Watch the next presidential election from the sidelines, with your voters playing no role in determining the outcome, or Join so that Ohioans' votes count for something. And the same choice would be facing Nebraska, and Alaska, and any other non-Joiners. Indeed, I think this little statute has an almost unstoppable dynamic behind it, and that it would—possibly quite quickly—become law in all states; what State would not want its voters to have any say at all in who becomes the next president?
And there you'd have it; the "pool" would then consist of the entire country, each State's electors would be pledged to the candidate winning the nationwide pooled popular vote, and that candidate would be elected—unanimously—by the Electoral College. So if that's your goal, this will, I think, get you there.
As for the constitutional question(s), the Supreme Court just this past term (in the "faithless elector" cases, Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado v. Baca) strongly, and unanimously, re-affirmed the broad, plenary authority given to the States in Article 2 to appoint electors in any manner they see fit. As I read these and other precedents on this matter, NY is perfectly free to declare, in its election law, that it will appoint electors in accordance with the popular vote count in New Jersey; it would be odd if it did so, but it would not be unconstitutional. And if NY can do that, why can't it say that it will appoint electors in accordance with the popular vote count in NY+NJ+any other State that wants to be in the common pool.
State power in this regard is, presumably, subject to the other binding provisions of the federal constitution; NY cannot declare that it will only appoint white males as electors, for example. But I'm having trouble seeing how Eisen's proposal runs afoul of any superseding constitutional provision. I suppose that an Ohioan could assert that the scheme violates the principle of "one person/one vote" under the Equal Protection Clause, by causing his/her vote to count for nothing in NY's determination of who to appoint as an elector while a New Jerseyan gets a say in the matter. But does an Ohioan have standing to challenge NY election law? And in any event, it's hard to see how an Ohioan somehow has a constitutional right to have his/her votes counted by NY; it's not as though under the current, and presumably constitutional, scheme NY takes Ohioans' preferences into account when choosing its electors—so how can an Ohioan contend that this "right" was violated by the NPV scheme?
[Note: When you invoke the dead, you give favor to the demons and invite their participation in our society. The reference to offerings to ancestors (honey, alcohol) means Santeria. The goal there is to become possessed in a trance.]
Patrisse Cullors says, “In my tradition you offer things that your loved ones who have passed away would want. Whether it’s like honey or tobacco… things like that…. It is important that we be in direct relationship with the dead.” She continues: “Hashtags for us are way more than a hashtag. It is literally almost resurrecting spirits that are going to work through us to get the work done.”
Melina Abdullah concurs. “What’s happened as we invoke these names is the invocation of their names that goes beyond remembering them,” she explains. “We call out our ancestors, we call them out for specific purposes”:
The first thing that we do when we hear of a murder is we come out, we pray, we pour a libation we built with the community… This movement is much more than a racial and social justice movement. At its core it’s a spiritual movement.
The segment concludes with Tomi’s reaction to the video. He says with energy, “Christians, wake the hell up”:
How much more evidence do you need? It’s right in front of you. She told you that every time the hashtag is shared it is not just a hashtag. There are spirits of the dead that we are invoking. Every time they mention the name, “Say his name—George Floyd”… that is a séance. That is calling forth the dead spirit to invoke chaos on the nation… Everything we have seen go on, buildings burning, all of that, there are witches laughing… They are laughing at how complicit the Church has been.
Will No One Save Them?
. . . the Democrats have staked out the most radical position yet on abortion. In surveys over the years, it has been rare to find more than 24 per cent of the public supporting abortion through the entire length of the pregnancy. But the Democratic position now is that: the right to abortion extends beyond the pregnancy itself and entails nothing less than the right to kill a child born alive.
That piece of news is bound to be jolting to many members of the public, and so how do we account for the fact that most people around us have heard nothing of it?
The first answer is that the main media, in print and television, have quite blacked out the story. Source.
Fleeing Parish with Vladimir Lossky
He himself offered a rumination about the state of the world. Driven from Russia through the work of the extreme Left, he was now fleeing the work of the extreme Right. He wrote:
Revolutionaries are always in the wrong, since, in their juvenile fervor for everything new, in their hopes for a better future, and a way of life built on justice, they always base themselves on theories that are abstract and artificial, making a clean sweep of living tradition which is, after all, founded on the experience of centuries.
Conservatives are always wrong, too, despite being rich in life experience, despite being shrewd and prudent, intelligent and skeptical. For, in their desire to preserve ancient institutions that have withstood the test of time, they decry the necessity of renewal, and man’s yearning for a better way of life.
Both attitudes carry within themselves the seeds of death. Is there, then, a third way? Another destiny for society than of always being subject to the threat of revolutions which destroy life, or reactionary attitudes which mummify it? Or is this the inevitable fate of all terrestrial cities, the natural law of their existence?
In fact, only in the Church can we find both a Tradition that knows no revolution and at the same time the impetus towards a new life that has no end. Her theory (understood in the true sense of the word, namely “vision”) is based on a constant experience of Truth. Which is why she is in possession of those infinite resources upon which may draw all who are called to govern the perishable cities of this world.