Is the Trump impeachment an attempt to end all future presidential elections?
The chair of the American Conservative Union, Matt Schlapp, summarized what he believes are the true motivations behind impeaching President Donald Trump this past Friday on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily show.
When speaking with the show’s host, Alex Marlow, he attributed the impeachment as a vehicle to end presidential elections.
Many who have tracked the impeachment and what led up to it would likely side with Schlapp’s notion on the reasons it came about. He attributed the upcoming election to being a display of wits instead of a discussion of common-sense policy and agenda:
“It’s all the marbles in 2020, and I think impeachment really brings that home.”
Schlapp jumped into how Trump’s term has been like no other presidents, in terms of criticism. He noted a condensed list of alleged scandal after scandal over the years:
“The Democrat agenda is radical, but also, as evidenced in D.C., it’s also not as important to them as is the wholesale destruction of Trump and everyone who supports Trump.
This is important for us all to know, that Donald Trump has taken it like no other politician has in an unfair way; impeachment without crimes, so many games, Russian collusion, the special counsel, all of this ridiculousness.”
During the show, Schlapp made some eerie predictions that this type of manipulation of impeachment is going to be a method Democrats will use moving forward.
Whether Trump gets removed from office or not, he feels this charade serves as the playbook on what to do whenever a Republican gets elected.
“We all have to understand that this is a tactic that they’re honing not just for Donald Trump or for his family. It’s for all of us. Whoever comes in the wake of Donald Trump — and I believe he’ll get a second term — this is what awaits them.
If they can impeach you and then remove you when you’ve never committed a crime, it really means there’s no elections. It’s not just the electoral college they want to get rid of, it’s essentially presidential elections.”
Marlow then asked Schlapp about what CPAC is trying to accomplish with their campaign to share conservative values with prison inmates.
It goes without saying that the more accountability that reformed convicts accept, which falls in line with conservatism, the more poised they are to succeed.
Schlapp delved into the work they’re doing in the prisons:
“We do a lot of work on criminal justice reform. Our approach on it is two-fold. Number one, we think a lot of prosecutions, certainly in Washington, DC, are politically motivated and screw conservatives and people that are just trying to operate in the private economy.
So, we actually do think there’s a lot of malfeasance when it comes to criminal prosecutions. Number two, most people come out of prison and come back into society, and our view is if they’re going to come out of prison, let’s have them as ready to succeed in our communities.”
The shows host commented on the notions presented by Schlapp, saying that conservatives shouldn’t withdraw from meeting inmates and sharing the values of conservatism. He noted that there’s already been tremendous damage done by conservatives avoiding events at colleges and universities.
Schlapp agreed with Marlow on that note:
“In that vein, we thought, ‘Let’s go to prison’. We worked with the secretary of corrections [in Pennsylvania] and brought our conservative message to the prisoners.”
During the segment, Schlapp also mentioned that CPAC’s tickets are in even higher demand than before. He stated that the February 26th event won’t come cheap for those eager to attend:
“I will warn everyone. Ticket sales are going at about three times the normal rate, even the big fast rate of last year. This country is on fire, including Trump supporters and conservatives to try to take back the country.
We’re just going to take every nickel we have in the treasury and spend it on trying to defeat socialism, and I think we’re going to at least forestall its advance for another four years if we all get out there.”
Earlier Sunday, we reported on another move out of Virginia to undermine the current election process.
Liberal Democrats in Virginia are becoming the poster children for what happens when they get control and should serve as a cautionary tale across the country should they ever gain control of the White House and both houses of Congress.
A bill proposed in the Virginia legislature for the 2020 session would direct all of Virginia’s electoral votes in a presidential election go to the winner of the national popular vote.
The bill, SB399, also known as the “National Popular Vote Compact” would direct the state to become part of an interstate agreement that would change the way electoral votes are awarded to candidates during a presidential election.
If the bill passes, Virginia will give its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Democrats are pathetic.
Remember during the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election when President Trump was asked in a debate if he would honor the results of the election, no matter the outcome? And when Trump answered, “I will look at it at the time,” he was widely excoriated by Democrats.
Hillary Clinton at the time called Trump’s comments “horrifying.” Funny how things have changed four years later, with Clinton still refusing to admit that she was beaten and Democrats doing the same.
So how have Democrats handled this? The “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.”
Supposedly Article II of the Constitution allows this through the clause which says that “states have the exclusive authority to decide on how they award their electoral votes.”
This question will likely end up going to the Supreme Court should it get to the point where it becomes an issue. The compact wouldn’t go into effect until over half the required electoral votes to get elected president have been achieved by the states in the compact.
It currently takes 270 electoral votes to become president.
Proponents of the national popular vote say it’s “only fair” that the overall winner of the popular vote be elected president, and like to use the adage “one person, one vote” as their credo.
The problem with the national popular vote, and the reason why the founding fathers established the electoral college is to prevent a select few locations from deciding who the president will be.
If the popular vote was the deciding factor, basically New York, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles would be deciding for the rest of the country who the president would be. The electoral college evens the playing field.
For example, a map of the 2016 presidential election, when broken down by county, overwhelmingly shows a large swath of the country voted for President Trump. Basically, the west coast and east coast went for Clinton.
The proposal in Virginia reads:
Presidential electors; National Popular Vote Compact. Enters Virginia into an interstate compact known as the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.
Article II of the Constitution of the United States gives the states exclusive and plenary authority to decide the manner of awarding their electoral votes Under the compact, Virginia agrees to award its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The compact goes into effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have joined the compact. A state may withdraw from the compact, however, a withdrawal occurring within six months of the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President has qualified to serve the next term.
Liberals are doing whatever they can to ensure that we will never again have a Republican president. Doubt us? Read on.
The Harvard Law Review just posted a piece called “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation.
The first sentence reads:
“For most of the twenty-first century, the world’s oldest surviving democracy has been led by a chief executive who received fewer votes than his opponent in an election for the position.”
Meaning George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
It goes on:
“The second—a serial abuser of women who hired as his campaign manager a lobbyist for violent dictatorships—authorized an immigration policy that forcibly separated migrant children from their families and indefinitely detained them in facilities described as ‘concentration camps.’”
The article speaks to the unfairness of elections in the United States, says that the Electoral College when it “contravenes the popular vote” is an example of this unfairness, and also is the fact that every state, no matter the population has two U.S. senators. This is “not fair.”
So, what does the Harvard Law Review propose? Are you sitting down?
They suggest that Washington, D.C., outside of a few “core federal buildings” be subdivided by neighborhood into 127 states. This would be done through the passing of a law by Congress.
These “states”, which would only require a simple majority in Congress to approve, would then be admitted to the union. What would this accomplish?
These “states” would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four new proposed amendments:
(1) a transfer of the Senate’s power to a body that represents citizens equally;
(2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal sized districts;
(3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and
(4) a modification of the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans.
The Harvard Law Review isn’t even hiding why they want to do this. Part of this article reads:
“…every measurable subdivision of D.C. voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party in the 2016 election, so the Democratic caucus in Congress could be confident that new states created within the District would elect like-minded delegations to Congress.”
This is all about giving Democrats unabated power, disregarding half the population of the United States. This is going to end well.
It is understood that this is an article by one law school, but this isn’t the University of the Third Age. This is Harvard Law School, one of the most respected legal institutions in the country, if not the world.
The Harvard Law Review had among its editors President Obama. It is not to be disregarded.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that Democrats will not be simply happy about seizing guns, stifling free speech and tweaking the electoral college.
They literally want to shred the Constitution and give themselves carte blanche to run roughshod over those who disagree with them. Scary times are coming folks. Buckle up.