Editor’s note: As usual, we’re playing catch-up on mail. This time we kick off with comments from The Daily Signal’s audience on liberals’ post-Trump storming of the Electoral College. Remember to write us at [email protected]—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Jarrett Stepman’s commentary, “Progressive Activists Look to Courts to Undermine the Electoral College,” perhaps a countersuit is needed to mandate that all states adopt the Electoral College (or a similar system) within their jurisdictions.
As is, highly populated cities with minimum land mass within many states dictate voter outcome for the majority of land mass within each state. This enables liberals to convert states to leftist ideas while rendering votes cast outside large population centers meaningless.
Essentially, city dwelling liberals are thereby allowed to silence conservative value rural residents.—Ron Dale
I don’t recall all this uproar when in previous elections the Electoral College caused a Democrat to win even though the Republican had more popular votes. Do we really want to be governed by what the states with the most people want?—Linda Byrom, San Antonio, Texas
Bill Clinton did not win the popular vote for president in either of his elections. He won twice by the Electoral College. And I did not hear one socialist whining about the Electoral College then.—Barry Goughnour, Madison Lake, Minn.
I am frankly tired of this whining about the popular vote since Hillary Clinton lost. Fact: Bill Clinton did not win the popular vote in either of his elections. It was OK with the Democrats and left then. Why not now?—Steven Grigsby, Kyiv, Ukraine
The burgeoning exodus of citizens and businesses alike from blue to red states is encouraging, if only it means that more and more pressure will be put on the leftist locales to change their liberal/socialist ways.
But I worry that they will be bringing with them their political bents—and then wanting to change red to blue, or at least purple.
In December 2004, after being born in Hollywood of all places and having lived in the “Pyrite State” for 54 years, I fled to Arizona where, I like to say, the Constitution lives. I wasn’t the first, and I certainly was not the last.
Yet since my move, I’ve seen too much evidence of Californians who came to the Grand Canyon State not for what it is, but for what they could make it. And too many of them want to recreate what they exited.
It scares me. Arizona, Texas, and other states may be inviting fire ants and cockroaches to the picnic.—Michael C. Westlund, Clarkdale, Ariz.
With a national popular vote that does away with the Electoral College, only the interests of large populations of urban dwellers will count as big city votes overwhelm suburban and rural voters. That is why the current system must prevail.—Chas Bassos
— Junkyard Dogs (@baileyjer) March 6, 2018
The Electoral College keeps it balanced and fair. Our forefathers were brilliant.—Patricia Ising
Eliminating the Electoral College would be unconstitutional because the states that have the least share of votes would be disenfranchised; the candidates would bypass these states. The cost and time would outweigh the benefit for a candidate.—Edwin Abella Aquino, Harrisburg, Pa.
Jarrett Stepman’s article is one of very few to comment about the stability of the American government. Most citizens have no idea America is it the top 1 percent of governments when it comes to stability. Remarkable for a free country.
One of the reasons America has done so well is the policy of citizen-owned firearms. This has had the effect of discouraging coup attempts, the most common form of government overthrow.—Vince Hathaway, Bartlett, Tenn.
This system has worked since the founding of our great country. Don’t like it, you are free to leave.—Donald Gitschier
Every part of the founding documents that make us the greatest nation on earth, along with our system of government, gives equal power to both the majority and the minority.—Dean Hunkele
The lack of understanding of our electoral system is staggering. We elect a president of the states, not a president of the people.—Larry Klassen
— Sister Toldjah ? (@sistertoldjah) March 6, 2018
A Different View From a High School Freshman
Dear Daily Signal: Thank you to high school freshman Nicole Martin for being willing to speak up (“I Go to a School Where an Attack Was Foiled. Here’s Why I’m Against Limiting Gun Rights.”). Having the discussion of what will stop school shootings is exactly what we need, rather than calling names or slandering.—Daniel and Lisa Wissner
Nicole Martin provides a reasoned, commonsense, constitutionally based response to the emotionally charged, irrational, and uninformed clatter being promoted in the mainstream media.—Derek Dubasik
This is great. Parents should teach their children about firearms, and to respect them.—Edward Shick, Lima, Ohio
Nicole Martin has it all together and is, in my opinion, right on. There are those people covered now by law that aren’t stable enough by law to have guns. Enforce the laws now on the books. We need fewer lawmakers and more law enforcers.—Jack Leeman
Thank you to Nicole Martin for adding a voice of clarity and common sense to the gun debate.—Mary De Voe
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) March 10, 2018
Dear Daily Signal: Superintendent Charles McMahon speaks the truth and has a very good program where everyone that can carry in the school program is well trained and is tested twice a year (“To Keep Students Safe, This School Allows Teachers to Carry Guns”).
This Oklahoma school program covered by Kelsey Harkness will save lives and will be a great tool to keep shooters out of their schools. Way to go by doing something to keep our children safe.—Jerry Smith
Now that is commonsense protection of our kids. Let’s go, Florida!—Glynnda White
Logical and practical thinking, guided by common sense, will go a long way in protecting the students in this school.—TheRightForRight.com
— Loving God & Country (@Dserayes) February 28, 2018
A Columbine Survivor Talks Common Sense
Dear Daily Signal: Patrick Neville, the young man from Colorado interviewed by Ginny Montalbano, has figured it out (“Why This Columbine Survivor Wants to End Gun-Free Zones”). He hasn’t allowed the teachers in our public schools to warp and corrupt his brain. More like him should run for office.—Kathleen Riley
After 9/11, pilots and air marshals armed themselves, and we haven’t had an armed hijacking since.—Rob White, Decatur, Ga.
Let’s take the politics off the table and actually allow for the protection of students. We protect banks, politicians, homes, etc. Nonsense like gun-free zones is not even close to a solution. Common sense is needed.—Juan Bassett, Germantown, Md.
It is a no-brainer. Here in Texas, in the conservative areas around where I live, many schools are waking up and allowing teachers to be trained by local law enforcement. This allows the officers who will be responding to get to know who the armed teachers are.—Bill Bailey
The impulse to murder is very much a spiritual problem. Government cannot solve it; government only can deter people from acting on that temptation. Certainly, gun-free zones have no deterrent value whatsoever.—Paul Bade, Mankato, Minn.
Anybody notice that you never have mass shootings in police stations, gun shops, rifle ranges, gun shows, or any other place where it is known that many armed citizens are present?—Charlie Funk
Demonstrations rage against guns, most of the media rages against guns, many self-proclaimed leaders rage against guns.
So many do not wish to see that most murders are committed by other means. And they do not seem all that interested in the killers, who almost always leave a behavioral trail to their horrendous event, a trail that can be intercepted, an event that can be halted.
Real solutions are available. But political posturing is not about solutions. There you have it.—Tal Noble, San Diego, Calif.
— Jennifer Rush (@JennRush) March 2, 2018
Dear Daily Signal: As Nolan Peterson reports, these young men from Ukraine go to war just as American young men go to war (“We Hold the Stories of War in Our Hands”). They go as young men with dreams of a future and a family. They return wounded and torn, with minds shattered from the horrors they have seen, and from deeds that they have had to do.
Wars are a terrible thing that seem to never end, from one to another. I myself went to a war in Southeast Asia, and returned a different person. My parents and friends could see it. I was not the young man they knew. I was lucky I came home; many do not.—Michael Hayes, Mount Pleasant, N.C.
Fascinating read. What a picture of the brutality of war and the brokenness of humanity. Such a reminder that under the veneer of the “First World” hides the truth that life has seldom been this easy.—Will Gruendler
Nolan Peterson’s reporting gives us some appreciation of what our combat veterans have been through.—Roger E. Kent
— Daniel Davis (@JDaniel_Davis) March 7, 2018
This and That
Dear Daily Signal: First of all, The Daily Signal is fantastic. Second, it’s interesting to hear Attorney General Jeff Sessions state that we can’t allow California to ignore immigration law.
Yet, this incompetent and weak attorney general allows leading players in the FBI and his own Justice Department to subvert the law and our Constitution. He not only has recused himself from the Russia investigation, he has recused himself from doing his job, period.
Let’s see how long he can stall and how many statutes of limitations he can allow to run out.—Randall Stevens
I agree with all of Bruce Klingner’s cautions in his commentary about any future meeting between our president and the North Korea dictator (“US Must Be Wary as It Pursues Engagement With North Korea”). I would like to add one more.
If President Trump and Kim Jong Un meet, they need to meet only with trusted advisers with them—no press. I am so fearful that North Korea has planned to trap Trump into a meltdown, and the picture on TV would be awful. Everything should be settled beforehand and the meeting be only a signing of any agreement.
No discussion will need to be made that can cause a meltdown. I am very worried about Trump’s behavior and what he might express on the world stage.—Pat Ellis
Katie Tubb did an outstanding job of assessing the costs being incurred by congressional stonewalling of the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding (“Now Is Congress’ Prime Opportunity to Act on Nuclear Waste”).
Two more costs should be included in the equation. The first is simply the “lost opportunity” cost incurred by using monies to pay for legal penalties to the utilities. The dollars being paid to the utilities for breach of contract could have been used for a lot of other pressing needs: improving veterans’ care, infrastructure, education, or a hundred other worthy causes.
The second cost that should be considered is that investors have no confidence there will be an “end of fuel cycle” solution. Thus, there is little interest in funding construction of new plants to replace the aging fleet of commercial reactors. That leads to a lack of capability in new reactor design and construction, and an inevitable gap in baseline generating capacity as reactors continue to be retired.—Dan Graser, Burke, Va.
Thank you to Diana Vern for fighting the good fight (“Obama Mandate Threatened My College’s Right to Exist. Here’s How Religious Liberty Won”). Her commentary has encouraged me today.—Brian Sayle
No surprises here in what happened to Ryan T. Anderson (“A New York Times Writer’s Reckless Hit Piece on My Transgender Book”). Mainstream media is intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, professionally lazy. They desire to keep up the leftist drumbeat regardless of reality, not to mention truth.—David McCool, Reno, Nev.
I thought it was funny that Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson recently missed scoring a point when discussing the “personhood” of mailmen and substituting the word “person” for any gender-related word.
“Well, what am I supposed to call you?” Carlson asked the woman he was debating.
She answered: “Just say mailperson.”
CarlSON didn’t catch that the word perSON has “son” in it, just as his own name does. What a retort that would have been had he caught that.
The last time I looked, “son” is male. If the mailMAN is a woMAN, should she be called “maildaughter” or “mailgirl”?
We can’t even use the word huMAN.—Joell Burville
— Emilie Kao (@EmilieTHF) March 1, 2018
Testimony of a ‘Family Values Atheist’
Dear Daily Signal: I love reading the stories I receive from The Daily Signal, yet I don’t necessarily fit into the mold. I am a family values atheist. I do not believe in God, but I took my children to church so they could decide for themselves.
I do believe in a woman’s right to choose, but I never would have made that choice for myself. (As an aside, I was pregnant with my first child at 15 and my second at 19.)
I believe that having both parents in the household, holding children accountable for their actions, and showing them appropriate responses to life’s curveballs helps to make for well-adjusted adults. While my husband and I were young parents, I’m fairly confident in saying we’ve raised two thoughtful, confident, productive adult children.
The purpose of this email is to hopefully dissuade your organization from believing that those with a lack of faith or belief in God precludes people from recognizing how people should behave toward others and the world at large.
My husband and I have had people tell us it isn’t possible that we are not God-fearing people, as we conduct ourselves in such a Christian manner. We have friends from many faiths, and do not condemn anyone for their beliefs. It does take my husband and me a great deal of time to open up regarding our “lack of faith.”
I personally am a history buff and value every word, comma, capital letter, and point that our Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution. I believe that we as a constitutional republic have it well, so long as we can see eye-to-eye on the important things.
I do not think a person’s religion, or lack thereof, needs to be considered in how good or bad a person is. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to your next articles.—Annette M. Clifford, Mitchell, Ind.
Trump's Tariffs Will Hurt the Economy.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, but significant pieces of that power have been outsourced to the executive branch over the past four decades.@DailySignal
via @torikwhiting https://t.co/OSCWvKQLEp
— Tim Gradous (@tgradous) March 9, 2018
Trump, Trade, and Tariffs
Dear Daily Signal: From her commentary, it sounds like Tori Whiting believes everything that some liberal economist wrote for the socialist left (“Trump’s Tariffs Will Hurt the Economy. Congress Should Reassert Its Constitutional Authority on Trade”). You can get any economist to come up with any scenario you want just by changing the numbers in the model used.
This same spin was used by the socialists back when President Bill Clinton was trying to get the North American Free Trade Agreement passed.
What is one way to break the union contracts and not have to go to court and spend a lot of money? You get the companies to close up in this country and go to another country. Clinton and the Democrats don’t like the unions. They do as always: They lie and the American taxpayer picks up the bill.—Claude Pugh
While I may fundamentally believe in free discourse, President Trump does not need criticism from The Heritage Foundation, in this case its trade economist, Tori Whiting, at this critical time in our history.
It appears that Hillsdale College is still the only group in America I can really trust. Further, my opinion as regards this bastion of traditionalism is solidly irreversible. I urge every American to go to www.hillsdale.edu and register to take Hillsdale’s free online courses that tell the factual story of our country.—John Wagner, Ann Arbor
I read Walter Williams’ commentary, “The Unseen Victims of Trump’s Tariffs.” I highly respect Dr. Williams’ opinion and agree with many of his articles. However, I found this piece lower than his high intelligence.
His argument about raising the price of products that people buy everyday was the weak point. It is a natural process to raise prices when costs increase. This includes material and labor costs. The price of goods needs to include a profit.
There is also a natural process where alternatives will be developed if the cost of materials increase too much. Automobiles used to be made of steel, but plastic has taken over because steel became too expensive.
Dr. Williams implies that American-made steel would cost more to make, causing prices to be increased. It is true that U.S. steel does cost more because we have more regulations and higher labor costs, but how does China make lower-cost steel?
The Chinese have fewer regulations and can ignore any carbon mandate on coal-burning pollutants. They also have lower labor costs because they do not pay for benefits.
Their products have to include the cost for shipping, and their steel is still cheaper than our steel. Shipping costs should have made a huge addition. Their steel is not teleported.
President Trump has made his first shot across the bow of other nations that we need fair trade to lower our trade deficit balance sheet. He has also has said he will exempt nations from tariffs when he gets a better deal.—Fred Minook
The three reasons Tori Whiting presents in her commentary are legitimate concerns about tariffs on imported goods, but upfront most of our trading partners use a value-added tax against us and have for decades (“3 Reasons Why Trump’s Tariff’s Would Hurt American Workers”).
They have no desire for balanced trade agreements. Their prosperity is tied to our deficit.
China, as an example, would look like North Korea if not for naive U.S. politicians wanting to make a true democracy out of a communist regime through capitalism. The reality is the Chinese government used their people to provide cheap labor to undermine our own work force and to enrich their leadership and their cronies, plus to build and strengthen their military using our technology.
Now the Chinese are our biggest national security threat along with the rogue states they cater to with weapons of mass destruction. Large and small arms. As an additional note, their people still exist at the blessings of the government. They’re nothing more than stock to be used as needed.
The Russians, on the other hand, are a military threat only because of weapons of mass destruction. Their economic impact is marginal, but because they sell weapons to our adversaries it requires we never trust but verify their motivations.
We have a right and the need to seek equal trade agreements that don’t contribute to our expanding deficit and ultimate demise.—Brannen Edwards, Savannah, Ga.
By our threatening China with tariffs, the Chinese may finally permit American goods and services to enter their country. Free trade will increase jobs in the USA.—Michael Lovett
Tariffs will not help anyone, and in fact, if readers check history, the cost of tariffs is always passed to the ultimate consumer.—Jim Dick, Agoura Hills, Calif.
Can’t have it both ways. Either increase tariffs or increase taxes. Increasing tariffs affect Americans and jobs way less than raising taxes. —Leland T. Christensen, Salt Lake City
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) March 23, 2018
How Are We Doing?
Dear Daily Signal: I would like to see more reporting on how Republican members of Congress vote on various issues and the consequences of their votes. There should be a weekly discussion of how Republicans voted on various issues, and the consequences of the winning vote.
I also would like to see The Heritage Foundation encourage state and county Republican parties to report to their respective members how their elected officials voted, and the consequences.—Chuck O’Reilly, Larkspur, Colo.
Why do I see the same names in “We Hear You?” John Levin and Edward Buatois are contrarians who comment on The Daily Signal just to rile other people up. Yet their comments are on every thread of “We Hear You.”—Sharon Pannell
Funny how a simple grammatical error can blow a journalist’s credibility. Capitol Hill doesn’t blow “threw” budget caps, it blows “through” them. I enjoy reading your very informative articles. Keep on keeping on.—Walt Griffen
Editor’s note: Thanks, Walt. We fixed that doozy of an error at the time.
Sorry, but the failure of the Republicans to give Judge Merrick Garland his “day in court” far surpasses whatever is happening now to lower court nominees.—Roy Smith
The Daily Signal keeps citizens informed of the news that really matters. Your news about Planned Parenthood is alarming.
As one opposed to abortion, I see that in spite of the massive government infusion, treatments have declined except for abortions. We all should support you to make a positive change.—Ralph Andrea
A quick thanks for all the great articles and for educating me. I, then, try to educate others. I particularly liked the article regarding the gun statistics and homicide information. Very enlightening.—Diane Stevens
Let God back in school.—David Barney
It is an outrage that Obamacare is still bankrupting our citizens. No bailouts!—Pat Ellis
Planned Parenthood keeps on working. It’s got to be stopped.—Ralph Andrea
Thank you for putting out the truth in media. I look forward to your daily articles.—Bill Mertz
Chrissy Clark helped to compile this column.