By Erik Rush
There’s very little that epitomizes the subversive deportment of powerful progressives – as well as their elitist, narcissistic perspective – more than Barack Hussein Obama’s description of the Electoral College as “a vestige” and “a carryover from an earlier vision of how our federal government was going to work.” This sage wisdom came in support of a campaign that was on at the time to convince Republican electors to disregard the outcome of our recent general election and deny Donald Trump the presidency when they cast their official ballots.
Also last week, a host of Hollywood celebrities, no doubt at the behest of losing Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton and the White House, voiced their support for the move to confound the Electoral College certification via a truly embarrassing public service announcement.
Now, we’re aware that Obama and other progressives hold a similarly dim view of the Constitution as they do the Electoral College, although few would be rash enough to articulate this publicly. Obama has previously criticized aspects of the Constitution, citing things he might have included or excluded at its inception, but he’s never suggested that he would scrap the entire document, which his description of the Electoral College before reporters at a White House press conference last week appears to recommend with regard to that body.
Frustration, outrage, and desperation make for curious behaviors however, and Obama’s above referenced words surely illustrate this.
Early in the last century, political elites who considered themselves intellectually superior and more worldly than the men who founded this nation determined that a massive, paternalistic federal government – with their class at the helm – would be a far better governmental model for the modern age than that of the constitutional republic. Their condescension and disdain for ordinary folk were both symptoms of this, and drove their justification for that point of view. The only question was how to bring it about in such a way that they would not be hung for treason en masse.
Factor in the radicalism of certain political aspirants who came of age during the 1960s and 1970s, their racialist hatred of the old, white, wig-wearing slave owners who founded America, and an unhealthy dose of malignant narcissism, and we can readily understand Obama’s words.
On December 12, conservative radio talk shows were abuzz with discussions of Obama having announced that he was ordering a review into hacking aimed at influencing U.S. elections. This is ironic for a few reasons, not the least of which being the documented reports of election tampering having taken place during the 2012 general election and the 2008 Democratic primaries, which favored Obama and contributed to his re-election in 2012 and his nomination in 2008, respectively.
This represented the most baseless sort of “fake news” that the left has (ironically) been decrying for weeks. Tangential to the announcement of Obama’s decree, a slew of wholly unsubstantiated news reports emerged contending that Russia had somehow influenced the election in Trump’s favor. How the Russians supposedly accomplished this remains a mystery; in truth, the purpose the accusation was to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, or to derail the electoral certification entirely. This was an intended if feeble objective of Obama’s words vis-à-vis the Electoral College.
Reports surfaced which cited anonymous officials in the Central Intelligence Agency who accused Russia of hacking the election. For those who may be wondering since when CIA officials had to be anonymous in bandying about accusations of foreign subterfuge, such incredulity is well-placed. This inconsistency is indicative of these accusations (likely crafted in the office of CIA chief, Obama pal and alleged Muslim convert John Brennan) being, for wont of a more delicate term, utter dog squeeze.
A major irony has to do with this issue arising after Obama’s October assurances to the public that there was no danger of fraud being an issue in the November election. Another irony lies in Obama’s action in light of then-candidate Donald Trump having raised the issue of possible election fraud back in October. President Obathhouse did in fact roundly chastise Trump for being a weenie who was attempting to set the stage for an electoral crisis in the event that he did not win the presidency. Still another is illustrated in the Obama administration having been involved in widespread and illegal overseas regime change, particularly their overt attempts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during Israel’s 2015 election.
To liberals and socialists in positions of influence, the rules are never the same for the unwashed as they are for the exalted – if they apply at all. Denying voters their duly elected President would be of no more consequence than denying citizens their rights under the Constitution, which they seek to do on a regular basis. It is for this reason that liberals and socialists should be disenfranchised and excluded from the political process entirely.
These attempts to sabotage Trump’s presidency before he even takes the Oath of Office speak to a desperation that throws caution to the wind with regard to potentially exposing their subversive nature. Their deep conceit however, precludes the recognition that one reason Trump was elected in the first place had to do in a large measure with the public being fed up with the byproducts of that subversive nature.
This deficiency on their part represents a decided advantage that we, their political opponents, have over them should we prove prudent enough to exploit it.
Originally published in WorldNetDaily