Eric Holder, Dukakis, Others on the left Demand a Direct Hit on the Constitution

3
Share

There is no problem with the electoral college but the left will tell you there is. What he is suggesting is dangerous. Eric Holder was cheered by the Bill Maher audience for saying he wants to see the electoral college abolished. This is a direct hit on the Constitution.

They use the misleading argument that the people aren’t deciding who wins and that is because of the college when, in fact, the electoral college is determined by American’s votes.  The difference in a Republic is the electoral college is a safeguard that allows small states to have a say in our government. It ensures a voice for those Americans who choose not to live in the nation’s most populated areas.

Ironically, in 2008, Hillary won the popular vote in the Democrat primary but lost in numbers of delegates. No one complained about that.

The leftists like Holder want full control of our government and would love nothing better than to erode the Republic. You will only hear them discuss our “Democracy” and they will never use the word, “Republic”.

Failed presidential candidate Michael Dukakis also wants to abolish the college and says we “must do everything we can” to do so. He calls it a “top priority”.

As we know from the Wikileaks emails of John Podesta and George Soros, the left wants full control of every US government on the local, state, and federal levels. They also want control of the media. Soros tried to buy the US election. He also has ties to the voting machines used in 307 districts and he has funded lawsuits to abolish voter ID.

The Tenth Amendment Center gives an in-depth explanation of why we need the electoral college:

This seems to be the most misunderstood piece of our government that the creators of the constitution could have ever put in place. The story we hear is that the creators of the constitution did not think the American people were smart enough to decide how government should operate but if this was true why would they establish any kind of democratic process to begin with? It seems at odds with the trend in American history up until that point because every state, town, and government used the democratic process to decide what laws are to be passed. Even the mayflower compact was a democratic agreement between the people so it seems that unusual that the creators of the constitution would defy the ongoing political trend by installing that into the United States constitution.

The Electoral College was not seen as a way to inhibit the people’s constitutional right to participate in the government but to prevent the democratic process from consuming the natural rights and freedom of the people. This was seen as an essential institution that acted as a safeguard for the people that does not exist today.

Examine one the word written by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #1 “the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants”.

In today’s direct election of statesmen we see that the elected officials manipulate the masses in order to make the government operate the way they want to. They move one group of people this way and another group of people another until they have enough votes to do what they want to do. This is possible because of our natural herd instinct that is a part of all animals. Yes—we are animals because a few thousand years of intelligence did not undo the several billion years Mother Nature had to weave this instinct inside of us. This allows government to direct the people in the same way a circus trainer directs the different animals in their show. They put them together and herd them one way and then herd them another in order to move the show the way they want to. No one can say the animals are in control and we can not say we are in control when the people in power use our primitive side against us.

The Electoral College made this impossible because the statesmen (or stateswoman) knew they got their office from the electors and not directly from the people. The electors were (and still are) free to choose whoever they want and because of this there was no point in attempting to manipulate the people’s natural herd instinct against them.

If I was you ‘the reader’ I would feel quite insulted by this description but just look at how many people support a position because they are democrats or republicans. We choose a political position by whether or not we are an R (republican) or a D (democrat) and we go along with whatever Rs and Ds are suppose to believe even though it may not be what we would believe individually. The creators of the constitution knew that our herd mentality could not be undone but they could make something to inhibit this. This something was the Electoral College.

It killed the motive for office holders to use dirty political tricks to manipulate our herd instinct to effectively make government move the way the politicians want instead of what the people want. They move government the way they want to and if you think that is preposterous then look at how the health care bill was passed. The office holders (the democratic party) performed a great trick by comparing health care reform to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. They even got a nearly identical photo that is comparable to a photo of Martin Luther King walking arm and arm with other quote-unquote reformers. It was Nancy Pelosi walking arm and arm with the Black Caucus to take the final vote which made it appear as some historically epic event. It pushed up the opinion polls up to the point where they could pass it but right afterward it went back down. The idea we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we were the circus master or the circus animals.

To say it another way, all the people represented by the red in this map would have no say in the final results – ever. Only urban areas would decide the election as they do in New York for example – no one has a say but the leftists in New York City. The difference between Hillary’s popular vote and Trump’s is about 400,000, a razor-thin and insignificant margin.

map-by-counties

 

Share

3 COMMENTS

  1. The concept of an electoral college can be a bit confusing, seeming a bit complex.

    For those who remain confused after reading the great explanation above, allow me to help. This, “rule of thumb” will serve you well in all things overtly political or in matters that have, by extension, political implications.

    If Democrats, the Left, Progressives are in favor of it, pushing it, giving the matter all sorts of rosy, misleading labels, IF THEY SUPPORT IT, you can bet it poses a threat to America’s Liberty, Freedoms or Sovereignty.

  2. Off hand, I cannot recall the Founder, but his description was “…the mobs in the city.” Folks in rural and small towns tend to be pretty independent and tend to have to pay for the basics, e. g. water (even our own wells), garbage pickup, sewage disposal (heavily regulated I might add), no zoning regulations, unless you count the power grab by the EPA regarding trying to control every square inch of wetlands as defined by them.

    Folks in the more populated areas rely upon the government to deliver this stuff to them. It’s called progress. Bigger highways, more streets, water, sewer, and utility hookups, mosquito and pest control, and on and on and on. Thus, mega and metro plexus tend to be run by politicians and bureauRats and never underestimate the power of an unelected bureauRat.

    The Electoral College exists to mollify that effect. Otherwise, there are very few geographic regions to which politicians would have to pander and pander they will.

    Are we ever going to take oath taking seriously? Eric Holder held one of the most important offices in this country and his remarks prove his utter disrespect for the Constitution. Of course, I must add that there are hardly any politicians from any of the political parties who respect.

Comments are closed.