No blue wave! by Miguel A. Faria, MD

As of Wednesday, 9:00 AM, November 7, 2018, Trump has won a great victory in the states where he campaigned; and in the states where he did not and where moderate House Republicans separated themselves from Trump, Republicans generally lost.

Media elitism and bias persist. Much was said about upper class and well-educated suburban women turning to the Democrat Party. CBS was quick to give the victory to Democrats even when less than 50% of votes were counted, but not so for Republicans. While Republicans like Heller were quick to concede when losing by significant numbers, the Democrats such as gubernatorial candidates Stacy Abrams in Georgia and Marxist Democrat Andrew Gillum in Florida, refused to concede even when losing by significant margins, and the media of course complied by not submitting to the vote count.

U.S. House map after midterm 2018 election. Courtesy RealClearPolitics Live

True, the House flipped sides but not as much as expected by the pundits. So far the Democrats have gone from 195 to 233, gaining 38 seats. Republicans are down from 240 to 200. This is essentially an average loss of seats, not unusual for the president’s party during midterm elections, not a “blue wave.” There were still three undecided seats. In contrast, consider that in 2010 during Obama’s first midterm election, the U.S. Senate went from 57 to 51 Democrats and the House from 256 to 193. The Democrats not only lost control of the U.S. House of .S. House map after midterm 2018 electionRepresentatives by losing 63 seats but also by losing 6 Senate seats only retained control of the Senate by one vote. As if that was not enough, in 2014 during Obama’s second midterm election, the Democrats lost another 9 Senate seats going from 53 to 44 and in the House lost another 13 seats reduced from 201 to 188. Those were true “red tides,” although they were not so proclaimed by the media then or now!

Suffice to say, Trump lost one house of Congress, but only one president in recent times has experienced an entire term with his party controlling Congress. That was Jimmy Carter and his administration turned out to be a disaster despite his overwhelming Congressional support!

Returning to the 2018 midterm election, consider the gubernatorial results: The Democrats may have picked up 7 seats but Republicans preserved their comfortable majority — 27 to 23 seats.

It is a great victory for Trump, regardless of the liberal media spin, including the progressive, globalist BBC. Officially the Republicans not only retained the U.S. Senate but flipped and gained several seats and losing only one in Nevada, where Republican Senator Dean Heller lost to Democrat Senator-elect Jacky Rosen.

But the big story, as of yet untold by the mainstream media and the BBC: All the previously categorized “toss ups,” contested and still “undecided” seats during the night November 6-7 in the Senate are projected to be won by Republicans, who could end up extending their net gains 2 to 3 seats:

Other than in Nevada, only West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, who voted for the Kavanaugh confirmation, defeated Republican Patrick Morrisey — 50% to 46% without dispute. The Democrats retained this seat.

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Tennessee: Republican woman Marsha Blackburn soundly defeated Phil Bredesen — 55% to 44% — GOP retains.

Texas: Republican Ted Cruz defeated the ”rock star of the Democrat Party” Beto O’Rourke — 51% to 48% — GOP retains.

Mississippi: Republican Roger Wicker defeated Democrat David Baria — 60% to 40%. The other seat in Mississippi goes to a run off election because of three candidates, 2 Republicans and one Democrat, contending in the midterm election. The GOP will very likely retain this seat too.

Arizona: After a week of a see saw contest, Republican Martha McSally lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema 48% to 49% of the votes.

Florida: Republican Rick Scott is beating incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson — 50.% (4,073,835 votes) to 50.2% (4,039, 298); that is by over 30,000 votes — GOP picks up.

Indiana: Republican Mike Braun soundly defeated Joe Donnelly — 53% to 43% — GOP picks up.

Missouri: Republican Josh Hawley soundly defeated Claire McCaskill — 51.5% to 45.5%. GOP picks up.

North Dakota: Republican Kevin Cramer soundly defeated Heidi Heitkamp — 55.4% to 44.6%. GOP picks up.

Montana: Democrat Jon Tester is projected to beat Republican Matt Rosendale — 49% to 48% (84% precincts), a certain Democrat pick up. At this point I would like to mention the fact that third parties have been spoilers for both Democrats and Republicans. In Montana, the Libertarian candidate siphoned 3% of the GOP vote and facilitated the victory of Senator Tester. In Indiana, the Libertarian Party took 4% of the vote, but the solid victory of Senator-elect Mike Braun did not require those votes. In Arizona, the Green Party, it must be admitted, garnered 2% from the Democratic vote facilitating a possible Republican win by Republican Martha McSally. This race remains undecided.

Final projected tally at the very least: Republicans 53 (+3); Democrat 47 (-3) by my count. Exactly what I had predicted a week before the election. By 10:00 AM, November 9, the media has not yet decided on Arizona, but the next day McSally had lost and conceded in a very conciliatory tone. One seat in Mississippi will go to a run off but in the end likely will go to the GOP. As I said, October 19, 2018:

For a minimum “blue wave” to take place [as dictated by the conventional wisdom of the pundits], the Democrats needed to add two Senate seats (as to make 51) and take 24 new House seats for control in both chambers. Political scientist Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, who asserted that “the blue wave will take place and the only question is how big it will be,” has a good chance of ending with egg on his face, again!

There was no blue wave because of the Senate victory. We can still say that Sabato, like many other “objective” pundits, ended up with egg on his face again, and the forced smiles at CBS the night of the election confirmed that it was so!

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, M.D. is an Associate Editor-in-Chief in socioeconomics, politics, medicine, and world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). His upcoming book is America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements (2019).

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. No blue wave! HaciendaPublishing.com, November 9, 2018. Revised November 21, 2018. Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/no-blue-wave-by-miguel-a-faria-md/

Copyright ©2018 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.


An Appeal to the GOP: Get the Republican House in Order! by Miguel A. Faria, MD

When Barack Obama was elected and re-elected president in 2008 and 2012, the GOP went out of its way to reach across the aisle to the Democrats and extend to President Obama two sequential honeymoon periods. Conservatives waited and hoped for the political pendulum to swing their way. But the future did not look bright.

Yet, despite the odds, conservative voters turned out in record numbers and elected a Republican President, Donald Trump. Incredibly, instead of getting together and working with the president, the GOP-controlled Congress became intransigent and rudderless, a party unto itself, hostile and obstructive to the Trump administration, cocky and overly fastidious about its legislative prestige and congressional prerogatives.

GOP Republican Senate leaders speak to reporters in 2017

The Republican Party, in short, has been torn asunder with its executive and legislative branches pulling in different and seemingly capricious directions —and therefore highly ineffective. The Democrats drubbed in the 2016 election are sitting back gloating. The conservative political agenda, despite GOP control of every branch of government, even the majority of state legislatures, has become bogged down. ObamaCare was not repealed, much less replaced; immigration reform is a mess; the filling of vacancies in the lower courts is lagging behind; North Korea with the hydrogen bomb on ICBMs is threatening to use them on the U.S. territory of Guam and our allies, South Korea and Japan. The Democrats and their toadies in the Republican Party, Senators John McCain and Lyndsey Graham, have managed to create tensions with Russia, who should have been our ally in Syria and elsewhere.

Trump may be difficult to work with, but he’s still the President of the United States. And frankly, I don’t think the Republicans could have won the presidential election of 2016 without Trump and his vitality, his message to those who had felt ignored, and the support he built for himself with blue collar workers in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc.

A magnificent 2016 GOP victory has up to now been squandered by ludicrous quarrels within an aimless GOP. This needs to stop. The President must go to Congress and fix the problem. Feathers of the fastidious and proud GOP leaders of Congress may need to be unruffled and smoothed — but be that as it may, cooperation is needed to get the work done for the good of the nation. 

Republican and conservative voters waited and roamed in the wilderness for eight years, and except for the filling of the Supreme Court vacancy with a great jurist, Neil Gorsuch, much work still needs to be done.

Instead of carrying out a conservative agenda and making “America Great Again,” as Trump and the Party promised, Americans are witnessing an untenable and infantile situation between the GOP Congress and the President.

Trump also needs to consider what happened politically in the first “American dynasty.” John Adams (1797-1801), a great American patriot, lawyer and Founding Father, floundered as U.S. president. He could not lead his own party. Both he and the Federalists went on to defeat. He was a one-term president; the Federalists went into extinction. A quarter of a century later, his gifted son, John Quincy Adams (1825-1829), was elected president. He could not work with his own administration or Congress. He also was defeated at reelection, another one-term president. John Quincy Adams was also the last president of the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

The next major political party to form, the Whigs, was a party of ideas and to win presidential elections chose victorious generals, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, as candidates. They won but unfortunately died too early in office to carry forward their party’s platform. The man who should have lead them, Henry Clay, who had a clear vision for the party, was never selected to run for president and the party went down the path of extinction after 1853. From then on, it was the Jacksonian Democrats, the Democrats of today, opposed by the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln (1860).

One man, even if he is the U.S. President, without a political party behind him accomplishes nothing — and becomes a one-term president. Likewise, a party without a working president is doomed to extinction.

It is high time President Trump invites the GOP leadership to Camp David, iron out differences, and trace a winning plan for the good of the nation.

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, M.D. is a retired clinical professor of neurosurgery and long time medical editor. He is the author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is https://HaciendaPublishing.com.

This commentary may be cited as: Faria MA. An appeal to the GOP — Get the Republican house in order! HaciendaPublishing.com, September 7, 2017. Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/an-appeal-to-the-gop-get-the-republican-house-in-order-by-miguel-a-faria-md/

This commentary was also published on GOPUSA.com on September 7, 2017 and in The Telegraph at Macon.com on September 6, 2017.

Copyright ©2017 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.


Media duplicity, activist judges, and the attack on Trump’s immigration ban by Miguel A. Faria, MD

The liberal media continue their hostile criticism of everything President Trump says and does. The latest brouhaha has been raised with the fake media outrage against Trump for his critical remarks of U.S. District Judge James Robart, the federal judge in Seattle who halted the enforcement of the executive order banning immigration from seven countries with terrorist ties. The judge’s freeze was implemented allegedly because of the violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Trump had picked these seven predominantly Muslim countries for his travel ban because they had been previously identified by the Obama administration as countries that could endanger the security of the United States. Be that as it may, the Ninth Circuit Court has today ruled against Trump. One wonders what would have happened if Trump had included pariah, atheist, communist North Korea in the ban?

The fact is we may have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide the issue, so I will not discuss constitutionality further. What seems to be lost in all this, though, is that Trump, as President of the United States, has the duty to protect the U.S. from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and protect our borders. But how can he fulfill this obligation as Commander-in-Chief if the courts tie his hands with their politics of judicial activism, backed by the political correctness and propaganda power of the progressive, opinion-molders of the media cartel? The power of the media and political correctness is such that it has even cowed Trump’s candidate for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who lamented to the press that Trump’s criticism of Judge Robart was “disheartening and demoralizing.” 

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States (2017-2021)

The media’s attack on Trump, acting as if they truly were lamenting the excoriation of the judge and offended at the erosion of the prestige of the courts, is hypocritical and ludicrous. The press has tried to elevate the incident, as they have attempted to with others affecting Trump, to an imminent constitutional crisis — as if Executive vs. Judiciary duels had never happened in American history, and as if American presidents have accepted judicial rulings without a fight and as sacrosanct verdicts. Listen to NBC News:

“President Donald Trump’s personal attack on the federal judge who blocked his controversial travel executive order could undermine public confidence in an institution capable checking his power, say legal experts. The fallout from Trump’s Twitter tirade against U.S. District Judge James Robart — in which he dismissed a respected jurist as a ‘so-called judge’ — continues to dog the new president.”

And did we ever hear the media criticize Obama for anything? Did Obama ever say anything “controversial,” fulminated any “tirades,” or did he ever “undermine public confidence”? Of course he did all of the above; but no, he was lionized and treated as an imperial royalty for everything he said or did! Roger Aronoff of Accuracy in Media (AIM) accurately asks, “Where was their criticism of Obama when he attacked and pressured the courts to rule in his favor, or condemned them after rulings went against him?” In 2010 after the Citizens United decision was rendered by the Supreme Court, Obama fulminated, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” Where was the media outrage?

And again commenting in the Obamacare ruling King v. Burwell, Obama told Reuters, “In our view, [there was] not a plausible legal basis for striking [the IRS rule] down.” In this case, the media not only did not criticize Obama, but as AIM predicted, the media “marshaled their forces in defense of Obama and his signature legislation.” Obamacare passed, as Nancy Pelosi advised, before the legislators knew what was in it.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States (1801-1809)

But let’s now briefly check our history to see if these Executive-Judiciary duels were unprecedented. Our third president, Thomas Jefferson not only criticized but even encouraged the House of Representatives to impeach Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Chase (1796-1811) when the judge expressed Federalist opinions in his rulings. The judge was acquitted.

Jefferson was even more critical of the Judiciary in general: The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)

The Constitution, on this hypothesis [i.e., balance of power with three independent branches of government], is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)

And here is one of my favorite judicial quotations from Jefferson: The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. (Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821)

Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States (1829-1837)

And what was the attitude of the real founder of the Democrat Party, President Andrew Jackson, toward the Judiciary? He went further, and ignored court rulings — when he felt he could ruled on constitutionality better than the courts, or where like Jefferson, he opined the court interfered with Executive prerogatives. For example, Jackson was very displeased with John Marshall and the Supreme Court and in the ruling, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), where the Supreme Court ruled favorably towards protecting the Cherokee Indian’s land, Jackson was incensed. He railed against the legendary Chief Justice of the Court: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Without the president’s enforcement of the ruling, the judicial opinion became meaningless. The militia of Georgia encroached on the Cherokee lands and subsequently in 1835, the Cherokees were removed from Georgia and forcibly relocated in Oklahoma in the famous “Trail of Tears.”

But historic truth is no obstacle to the liberal media, and history, if inconvenient, is trampled or ignored. The press talks about “fake news” by others, those not anointed in the club of the progressive, opinion-molders of the media cartel; but claiming that Trump’s attitude to judges is unprecedented and “could undermine public confidence in an institution capable of checking his power” is artful and biased opinion — subjective reporting, considerably worse and more damaging to the public than outright “fake news” because they pass these biased opinions as objective reporting. Americans will take the media and journalism more seriously, if and when, the media regain the public trust with more truthful, balanced, and objective coverage. The almost farcical war on Trump’s every move proves that return to journalistic ethics is far from being the case, and that instead journalistic partisanship, like many other aspects of the zeitgeist of our time, is at a nadir in American contemporary culture.

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. is an Associate Editor in Chief and a World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He is the Author of Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is https://HaciendaPublishing.com.

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Media duplicity, activist judges, and the attack on Trump’s immigration ban. HaciendaPublishing.com, February 12, 2017. Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/media-duplicity-activist-judges-and-the-attack-on-trumps-immigration-ban-by-miguel-a-faria-md

This article was also published in the Macon Telegraph on February 10, 2017 and in GOPUSA.com on February 13, 2017.

Copyright ©2017 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.


Immigration, truth and the delusional Left by Russell L. Blaylock, MD

It has been said that truth is the first causality of war and we have been at war with the collectivist elements for the past two hundred years. One among many demands by the delusional left is that we should have open borders and that protected borders and using a rational and legal method of choosing who can enter our country and become a citizen is unAmerican, heartless and evil. With fake tears in his eyes and in a trembling voice Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) tried to convince the nation that protecting our borders is indeed unAmerican. The conscripted mind of the leftist followers all repeat this mantra unexamined, as if it is were an obvious reasoned idea.

To want to protect our borders from being invaded by hordes of other nations’ misfits, criminals, violent gangs and drug dealers as well as trained terrorist armies bent on our destruction, is considered mean spirited, heartless, cruel and — well, fascist by the deviant left. Now, to those of us who have actually read history, we know that using the term fascist to categorize one’s enemy was engineered by Stalin to describe the members of the regime of his previous partner in world revolution, Hitler. The idea being to demonize his new turncoat enemy by using the name of a political ideology that he himself endorsed just a short time prior to Hitler’s betrayal. In fact, the new communist is a red fascist (by the Gramscian idea of the long march).

Illegal Arab immigrants await entry into France. Over half of the French population growth in 2017 driven by immigration

Even if we ignore the criminal and destructive elements that wish to enter our country, one must appreciate that our culture is still the freest, most productive and holds more opportunity for the individual than any other country in the world. To open our doors to the world would mean not thousands but tens of millions would flow into our country. Can we really suddenly, with no chance of assimilation, accommodate 50 million or 100 million more people in our country? They would take away the jobs of our own citizens as is happening now and they would overwhelm our hospitals, clinics, welfare institutions, schools and housing availability, leaving Americans to pick up the bill. Already we have a number of hospitals that have had to close their doors because of the influx of illegal immigrants — leaving our citizens without local health care. It would mean every city would have whole sections of poor immigrants who couldn’t speak English, who were chronically unemployed and who have carried with them the primitive culture they came from — often a violent culture. This is happening right now in Europe and the UK.

The leftist elements are driving forth a program to destroy free speech, demonize its enemies, attack them physically as well as intellectually, and riot and burn at every opportunity — just as the fascists and communists have done throughout history. Hate speech in the leftist lexicon means anything that disagrees with their totalitarian idiocy. Recently, one of the leftist groups tweeted that they would not hesitate to kill the children of those who published anything opposed to their rambling hatred. One must ask the obvious question — Would you really want these people to rule you — to control society?

In this discussion, I only want to consider immigration of the Islamic believers. The Western nations agreed to accept millions of Islamic refugees on the basis of compassion for oppressed people. What seems to have escaped most defenders of this policy as well as the lethargic among our population is the question — Who exactly are they escaping? Are they escaping persecution and mass killing by Christians? By Nazis? By Europeans or Americans? No, they are escaping mass murder by their own religious believers in Islam — it is a religious civil war, a Jihad within a Jihad. In fact, since this war began they have slaughtered 90,000 Christians and sent millions into dangerous refugee camps. At the same time, they have killed several hundred thousand Muslims. Their principle enemy in the region includes those who have a slightly different Islamic belief — Shia vs Sunni. Why should we get in the middle of a religious war that in no way should concern Americans?

Because the Islamists have decided to fight among themselves and murder themselves in mass numbers they now, along with the leftists of the world, expect the Western nations to take them in as permanent residents. This is despite the fact they have publically and unendingly stated they seek to put the entire world under sharia law and under socialist Islamic rule. Further, they openly state that they plan to exterminate every Jew in the entire world — that they plan to complete Hitler’s original plan. In addition, all other religions are expected to convert to Islam or die or live in oppressive enclaves as third class citizens. In essence, they and their leftist followers, are insisting the West commit suicide and agree to the destruction of their culture.

The leftist followers cannot seem to grasp the notion that when millions of Islamists enter the United States they will hold in their hands the power to fundamentally change America, not just by violence, but by the power of the vote. France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden and Norway are under such an attack today; yet being leftist collectivists, many still cannot see it. Leftist followers always seem to have great difficulty learning the lessons of history — contemporary and ancient.

There is a videotape made by a former marine now Department of Defense contractor working in Iraq who makes the most powerful case for severely restricting immigration of Islamic believers. He describes sitting around with Islamic soldiers who are supposed to be our friends, discussing President Trump’s new temporary immigration halt from seven Islamic terrorist states (all chosen by Obama). They are in an angry uproar over the policy, expressing their view that it is a betrayal. He then asked them what would happen if he were to step outside their military compound into the city. They tell him, unashamedly, that he would be captured, tortured severely, and then killed by beheading, which would be videotaped. He then tells them — “If you don’t want me in your society — your country, why should I invite you into mine?” He then tells them — “You will have the same hatred for Americans once you are in my country that you express now.” He then points out that the people who would kill him were not ISIS or any other terrorist group; they were ordinary citizens of the country. 

My question would be — So then, why are we defending these people who hate us so much that they would torture and behead our soldiers? Why are our soldiers dying to defend these people? Why would we invite hordes of people who profess their hatred for everything Western into our country? Only a fool would do such a thing and the left are indeed fools. The vast majority of these immigrants are young men — most who are escaping military service; they are cowards. Yet, they hate America. We must also keep in mind when these intellectual midgets in our country scream that we are fascists, that the Muslim Brotherhood was nurtured and turned into the force it has become in the Middle East by Hitler himself. Historians of the era tell of seeing Hitler’s picture hanging on the wall in houses of millions of Arabs during Hitler’s rule. Further, Amin al-Husseini, former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (1921-1937) and one of the principle founders of Arab fascism, was promised by Hitler rule of the Middle East once Hitler won the war. The idiot left is defending the real fascists — as usual.

President Trump and conservatives in general, have as the core of their principles, a belief in a central government of dramatically reduced size and scope, and maximization of the rights of the individual. The left, as a matter of principle, desires a powerful central government, suppression of the individual by the collective and absolute control of virtually every aspect of the individual’s life — what he shall eat, what he can wear, what job he well have, where he will live, his occupation, what information he shall have access to, and what beliefs he should be allowed to hold. The left is hell bent on destroying all traditions, cultural beliefs, Western institutions, religious understandings, and information that might in any way contradict the absolute insane beliefs they hold so dear. They have introduced a program of deviancy, cultural devastation and empowerment of every form of aberrant behavior known —including Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT), postmodernism, a “living” Constitution, obliteration of the rule of law, and the end of free choice, compulsion with forced government mandates — emanating from their warped minds. During the confirmation hearings, I was appalled to listen to idiot leftist after idiot leftist ask these serious men as their main question how they intended to treat LGBT — they even asked the future secretary of the Department of Defense that question — as if everything hinged on their deviant sexual view.

I can only pray that the good Lord will give President Trump the guidance and strength to continue his quest to return this nation to sanity — to the principles that made it great.

References and Recommended Reading

1. Morse C. The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolph Hitler and Haj Amin-Husserini. World Net Daily, Washington, D.C., 2010.

2. Blaylock RL. The Use of Propaganda and Psychological Warfare by the Left. HaciendaPublishing.com, August 8, 2016. Available from: http://haciendapublishing.com/the-use-of-propaganda-and-psychological-warfare-by-the-left-by-russell-l-blaylock-m-d/.

3. Blaylock RL. Confusion about Politics: Diversion as a leftist tactic. HaciendaPublishing.com. April 29, 2016. Available from: http://haciendapublishing.com/confusion-about-politics-diversion-as-a-leftist-tactic-by-russell-l-blaylock-md/.

Written by Russell L. Blaylock, MD

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock is President of Advanced Nutritional Concepts and Theoretical Neurosciences in Jackson, Mississippi. He has written numerous path-blazing scientific papers and many books, including Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills (1994), Bioterrorism: How You Can Survive (2001), Health and Nutrition Secrets (2002), and Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients (2003). He is Associate Editor-in-Chief and a Consulting Editor in Basic Neuroscience for Surgical Neurology International (SNI).

This article may be cited as: Blaylock RL. Immigration, truth and the delusional left. HaciendaPublishing.com. February 8, 2017. Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/immigration-truth-and-the-delusional-left-by-russell-l-blaylock-md/.

Copyright ©2017 Hacienda Publishing Inc.


The Democrats’ unwarranted partisan assault on the Electoral College by Miguel A. Faria, MD

Update: The assault on the Electoral college continues. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Socialist from New York’s 14th Congressional District claims the Electoral College is a racist American relic that must be abolished:

” ‘It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic,’ the 28-year-old Boston University graduate tweeted to her 881,000 followers Saturday afternoon.” A month after the midterm election, former Rep. John Dingell (D-MI; now deceased), also called for abolishing both the Electoral College and the Senate, claiming a “disproportionate influence of small states that paralyzes the lawmaking and electoral processes.”

Abolition or subversion of the Electoral College (as proposed by the Democrats and RINOs in the guise of the the National Popular Vote coalition) is a very dangerous proposition as cited in the article, “Coalition to change Electoral College votes grows closer to 270-vote mark,” UPI, June 13, 2019. Yet the proposition is looming in the political horizon and most Americans are either not aware of it or do not seem to care. This is the conversion of our Republican form of government as written in our Constitution to a social (mass) democracy by eliminating the Electoral College and the power of the states. This would not only eliminate the balance of power between large and small states but between rural areas and urban areas, so that centers of large populations, such as LA, NY, and other large cities in Democratic centers of power, would dominate the country.

In previous articles I discussed the historic reasons for the inclusion of the Electoral College process in presidential elections, citing specific reasons the Founding Fathers, soon after gaining American independence from the British Empire and experiencing the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, finally framed a Constitutional Republic at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The founders chose this form of government for the United States rather than a simple majoritarian democracy. As opposed to a mass democracy where a simple popular majority decides the law, the rights of citizens, and the election of all officials — in a Constitutional Republic, the deliberate rule of law is supreme, and the government is limited in scope and is subject to the doctrines of Limited Government, Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances. In a Republic, the property of all, the human rights of unpopular minorities, and the natural rights of individual citizens are all protected, despite unjust, capricious, and sometimes the covetous vote of the majority of less-well-to-do citizens.

The Electoral College is one of those institutions of a republican form of government that protects the rights of all citizens to fair representation and participation in a presidential contest. The Electoral College (EC) allows all areas of the country to be fairly and more evenly represented in presidential elections, preventing several clusters of heavily populated urban areas from dominating presidential elections.

In a more recent article, referring to the presidential election of Donald Trump in 2016, I described how four California counties could have decided unfairly and very detrimentally the presidential election for Hillary Clinton, if the popular vote solely had been the sine qua non for victory. Despite angry responses from many Democratic corners, the EC worked as it was intended, preventing four wayward counties from stealing the presidency.

The reason for returning to the subject of the EC is to describe the persistent efforts that are being made by demagogic Democratic operatives in a number of states to overthrow the Electoral College. This hatred for the EC is based on having sustained two crucial defeats by Republican presidential candidates, including the 2016 presidential election in which Donald Trump triumphed, blanketing the nation with a magnificently red electoral map, which as Dr. David Stolinsky points out, “you could drive from Key West, Florida, to Bonners Ferry, Idaho, a distance of 3193 miles, and never pass through a state carried by Hillary Clinton.”

The unruly behavior of Democratic activists, the irresponsible conduct, the inflammatory verbiage, and the contradictory behavior and oratory of the many demagogic Democrats after the Trump victory, as we shall see, attest to the fact that the Democrats would have praised the Electoral College to the skies, if only the reverse had taken place and Hillary had been elected president. Power for the Democrats was and remains everything.

But despite Trump’s overwhelming victory, we witnessed the baseless complaints by sore losers and the expressed hypocrisy of many Democratic operatives urging presidential electors to violate their pledge and refuse to vote for Donald Trump, despite the democratically casted votes in those states and the wishes of their voters. In fact only two Electors reneged on their votes for Trump, while four did so for Hillary. Dr. Stolinsky attributes this attitude of the Democrats to “the colossal hubris, the unbounded egotism, that enables current leftists to try to thwart the will of Americans and undo the election.” This is the same narcissism that assures them that they can build a socialist paradise, where all the builders of communism in the 20th century failed, because they are smarter than us and more intelligent than the rest of the world.

And what is the next step in the left-wingers attempt to dismantle the Electoral College? According to an AP report, “More states consider working around the Electoral College.“ First of all, we must realize that the Associated Press, as part and parcel of the liberal mainstream media, when it refers in the biased statement to “more states…frustrated after seeing another candidate secure the presidency without winning the national popular vote,” mostly refers to heavily Democratic states that vote for the Democratic ticket election after election. Thus, “the frustration” and desperation in these particular states is neither universal nor unpredictable.

As the article points out, “The states that have already passed legislation to join the group represent 165 electoral votes. Typically reliably Democratic states, the list includes California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and D.C. — all states where Democrat Hillary Clinton defeated Republican Donald Trump.”

But this effort should not be ignored outright; ideologically-committed left-wing legislators from other states, including some key “swing” states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Mexico are unwisely and detrimentally to their states’ representation in the federal system, planning to introduce legislation to essentially abolish, all but in name, the Electoral College process. Already 11 states have joined the effort, which began in 2006 and is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Why Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona, and New Mexico, among others, would join this Compact is beyond me, and certainly beyond the intelligence, political acumen, and comprehension of those legislators favoring and proposing it. Unless they place party ideology above the interest of their states and their constituents.

As battleground states, these swing states wield a tremendous political influence in presidential elections, and they would be relinquishing these key positions at the behest of selfish, unwise, faithless, and power-hungry legislators and Democratic operatives, who care more about their party, and themselves personally, than the states they supposedly serve. Since efforts aimed at amending the U.S. Constitution require, not only an Act of Congress but also ratification by 3/4th of the states, that route is probably futile.

But the Democratic operatives are undeterred; they are also leading attacks against the EC at the state level, as well as by simple congressional legislation. In 2016, according to NPVIC, there were 162 Democrats and 154 Republicans who sponsored the Compact. It behooves citizens to find out who those legislators are, legislators who are betraying their states and who should be sacked for this betrayal, particularly Republican ones, who should know better. In the case of these stray Republicans, we must ascribe their actions to ignorance or betrayal as RINOS (“Republicans in Name Only”).

All these efforts to bypass the Electoral College demonstrate that these faithless Democratic operatives are much more interested in gaining political power by any means, even undemocratic methods, than in preserving our constitutional process of fairness and the rule of law, on which the American republic is based, a form of governance that has brought so much peace and freedom to the world, preserved our own liberty, and that has ushered in the most prosperity and happiness to any people in the history of humanity.

The reality is that the Electoral College process has shown that it has worked as it was intended, and continues to function well. It has preserved the delicate geographical political balance among the various urban and rural populations of the small and large states of the federal union, and it has prevented small but heavily populated urban areas from dominating the process of presidential and vice-presidential elections at the expense of the rest of the nation.

In sum, the Electoral College is an essential part of our republican from of government that has preserved the integrity and sanity of the electoral presidential process acting with deliberation and wisdom as it was intended by the Founders in our republican form of government. It should be kept in place and cherished!

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. is Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine. He is an Associate Editor in Chief and a World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He is the Author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002)

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. The Democrats’ unwarranted partisan assault on the Electoral College. HaciendaPublishing.com, January 19, 2017. Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/the-democrats-unwarranted-partisan-assault-on-the-electoral-college-by-miguel-a-faria-md/

This article first appeared in HaciendaPublishing January 19, 2017. Similar but unillustrated versions of this article also appeared in GOPUSA on January 14, 2017 and in the Macon Telegraph, January 18, 2017. Republished and edited, December 12, 2018.

Copyright ©2019 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.


How the Electoral College kept four California counties from dictating to the entire nation! by Miguel A. Faria, MD

As Ronald Reagan used to say, when repeatedly correcting misstatements, “here we go again!” And yes, I repeatedly hear the United States of America referred to as a democracy by both parroting ignorants as well as those who know or should know better. Just recently a letter to the editor in my local paper argued that the Electoral College (EC) is not a good system because, “in a true democracy every vote should count and the candidate who gets the most votes should win.” Attempting logic with an Aristotelian syllogism, the writer continued, “Two of the last three men elected president were runners-up in popular votes in their initial elections. This indicates either the system is flawed or that the apportionment of electors is inequitable.”

As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. Constitution, a woman asked him, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?” He replied: “A republic—if you can keep it.”

The letter writer is dead wrong: First, the Founding Fathers created for us a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and they, almost to a man, abhorred the idea of framing a “true [or mass] democracy” for the emerging United States. A democracy for them was the capricious and irresponsible rule of the mob. Second, it was the letter writer’s attempted syllogism that erred not the Electoral College. The EC system is neither “flawed,” nor “inequitable,” as he claimed, but as we shall see it worked as it was intended by the Founders and the legislators who subsequently updated this portion of the U.S. Constitution.

The letter writer concluded with “It is time to re-examine the Electoral College and move on into the 21st century and beyond” — a Democrat’s cliché indeed, which brings us to another sophistry, and that is the claim that the EC is outmoded. The fact remains the Electoral College remains timeless because it allows all areas of the country to be fairly represented in presidential elections, preventing several heavily populated clusters of urban areas from dominating presidential elections. And while it is true that the states where the race is close may decide the election, that is not necessarily a bad thing when the country is polarized as it is, and those swing states, less committed to party or ideology, deliberate for the best candidate of either party and preserve a political balance. And despite the empty claim to the contrary, there is no evidence that citizens vote less in states where a particular candidate is heavily favored to win.

Consider the situation in California, ironically described by a foreign news agency, Arutz Sheva, in a brief report entitled, “Popular Vote: One State Does Not Speak for the Nation”:

Indeed, Clinton did win more votes across the United States by the large margin of 2.8 million. Trump garnered close to 63 million votes, while Clinton won nearly 65.8 million. However, here’s the rub: The numbers show that this entire lead, and then some, came from only one state: California. In fact, most remarkably, the city of Los Angeles alone gave Clinton 1.69 million votes more than it gave Trump. The Golden State, long noted for its more progressive and liberal tendencies than the rest of the Union, voted overwhelmingly for Hilary Clinton. She received 61.73% of the vote there, compared to just a smidgeon over half that for Trump – 31.62%. In real numbers, slightly more than 4.48 million Californians voted for Trump, while a whopping 8.75 million-plus people voted there for Clinton. In the other 49 states, Trump actually won the popular vote by a significant 1.4 million margin. In fact, some bemusedly say that California is practically a country unto itself…

Indeed, California has become a country unto itself, way off the mainstream and out in the left political field. Why would left-wing Californians have the right to dictate what the rest of the country can and can’t do, under what logic, under what political philosophy?

And we may be judging Californians in general too harshly. In fact, as Arutz Sheva reports, most of California actually preserved its political acumen; it was only four cities and counties in California that provided that avalanche of votes for Crooked Hillary that made all the difference in the popular vote:

Specifically, Alameda County gave Clinton 418,000 more votes, Santa Clara gave her 367,000 more, and the city of San Francisco provided a margin of 308,000. Together with the 1.69 million of Los Angeles, these four alone gave Clinton nearly 2.8 million more votes – almost precisely the margin by which she won the national vote!

And that is the gist of the much-touted popular vote: Four counties in California, left-wing counties out of the mainstream of American society, provided that margin of the popular vote for Crooked Hillary. Consider that San Francisco and Los Angeles are the major sources of health problems in the state of California:  

Contaminated hypodermic needles washing up on California beaches

Contaminated hypodermic needles now washing up on California beaches by the hundreds, presumably discarded by unknown entities and very likely drug addicts, who commonly use insulin syringes and hypodermic needles for drug use. It is precisely those left-wing counties and cities, such as Orange County, Los Angeles County, and San Francisco  that attract vagrants, gangs, and drug addicts because they have become progressive, welfare sanctuaries loaded with filth, pollution, vagrancy and crime; the same counties that have become veritable threats to life and health upon the utter abandonment of cleanliness, hygiene, sanitation, and sanity! These are the counties that in the minds of Democrat stalwarts and critics of the Electoral College should have decided the election in Crooked Hillary’s favor and decide the direction the country should move in the 21st century!

Yes, the Electoral College preserved the sanity and probity of the entire nation and acted with deliberation and wisdom as it was intended by the Founders to preserve the Republic!

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, M.D. is an Associate Editor in Chief and World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He is President of Haciendapublishing, a retired neurosurgeon, and the author of  Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is http://www.haciendapub.com 

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. How the Electoral College kept four California counties from dictating to the entire nation! Haciendapub.com, January 3, 2017 Available from: https://haciendapublishing.com/how-the-electoral-college-kept-four-california-counties-from-dictating-to-the-entire-nation-by-miguel-a-faria-md/

A version of this article also appeared in GOPUSA January 3, 2017

Read the follow up to this article here.

Copyright ©2017  Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD