Left of Left Spanberger signs law to render Virginia's votes 'null and void'

Bringing the United States perilously close to dismantling its constitutional foundation, leftist Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has signed HB965 into law, officially entering the Commonwealth into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The decision has sparked immediate outrage across the state, as critics realize the measure effectively renders the individual votes of Virginians “null and void.”

By signing this compact, Spanberger has agreed to hand Virginia’s 13 electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the national popular vote, regardless of how the people of Virginia actually cast their ballots. [Unsurprisingly, the popular vote tends to side with the Democrats a majority of the time, but President Trump won it for the first time since 2004 when George W. Bush won it.]

With Virginia’s entry, the movement is now a terrifying 48 electoral votes away from taking effect. The current total stands at 222 votes, or 82 percent of the way to the 270-vote threshold required to fundamentally upend American elections.

It is no coincidence that the states rushing to bypass the Constitution represent a monolithic partisan bloc. To date, every single state that has joined the compact is a blue state, moving the country toward a system where a few deep-blue urban centers could dictate the presidency for the entire Union. The list of members includes Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, and now Virginia.This partisan rush to ignore state boundaries flies in the face of Alexander Hamilton’s warnings in Federalist No. 68. Hamilton cautioned that the Electoral College was not a mere suggestion, but an “excellent” system designed to protect the Republic from the very “tumult and disorder” that a direct popular vote invites.

The Founders were explicitly wary of a direct popular vote, fearing it would allow a “demagogue” with “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” to manipulate the masses. Hamilton argued that the presidency should not be a prize for the most famous or the most populist, but should be determined by an intermediate body of electors, men “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

By moving toward a national popular vote, Spanberger and the NPVIC proponents are discarding what Hamilton called a “judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements” proper for selecting a leader. Instead of a deliberative process, the nation is being pushed toward a system where candidates will focus exclusively on high-population urban centers like New York City or Los Angeles, leaving rural and small-state voters entirely ignored. This would mean an end to a republic form of governor. 

Hamilton was particularly concerned with the potential for national chaos during an election. He argued that by having electors meet in their respective states, their “detached and divided situation” would protect the process from “heats and ferments” that might otherwise “convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements.”

A national popular vote does the exact opposite. It removes the firewall provided by state lines. In a popular vote system, a dispute in a single precinct could trigger a 50-state national recount, creating the very “tumult” Hamilton sought to avoid. The Electoral College, by contrast, provides “effectual security against this mischief” by containing election disputes within individual states. 

A simple analogy regarding this kind of 'democracy' is: if there are 3 lions and one sheep voting on 'what's for dinner' grass or meat, guess who would win.

Perhaps most frightening is how this move weakens the nation’s defenses against foreign influence. Hamilton noted that the Electoral College was designed to oppose “cabal, intrigue, and corruption,” which he called the “most deadly adversaries of republican government.” He believed that a national popular vote would make it easier for “foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils” by raising a “creature of their own” to the presidency. The Founders’ system ensured that the Executive was “independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.” With Virginia becoming the latest blue state to join this compact, the “moral certainty” Hamilton promised, that the office would fall only to those “endowed with the requisite qualifications,” is under direct threat.

If 48 more electoral votes are secured, the system that has guided the nation for over two centuries will be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. If you really want to help support my work here, you can Buy Me A Coffee or click on the ads alongside this page--it really helps. You can even subscribe to Brain Flushings--it's free.

Tweet

Rob Reiner says GOP lawmakers challenging election will be "committing sedition and treason"

Leftist Hollywood dolt who got his start playing in "All in the Family" as Archie Bunker's son-in-law referred to as "Meathead," has finally perfected that role. Reiner is attacking GOP lawmakers for doing the exact same thing Democrats have done a number of times in the past, starting in 1969 when both they and the Republicans wanted to get rid of the electoral college.

Now Meathead is attacking the Republicans who plan to challenge the electoral college results and is accusing them of committing "sedition and treason."

Sedition is defined as "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarchy." 

Treason is "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign of overthrow the government."

Sorry, I don't see it. Neither definition applies to the notion of challenging or questioning the results of the electoral college. The Republicans are not trying to overthrow the country or betray it. They don't want to kill President-elect Joseph Robinette Biden--he will likely be leaving office before finishing his first term if his mental capacity continues its spiral down at the same rate it appears to be going. All the Republicans want to do is to take a good, hard look at how the election turned out the way it did.

Meathead has constantly called Trump a Russian asset, a claim that has been disproved and should embarrass anyone who continues to make it. But meatheads don't embarrass easily, I suppose.

“Every Senator and Congressperson who votes to overturn the election will be committing an act of Sedition and Treason. Their names will be recorded for history,” Reiner wrote.

Funny, Reiner and the Democrats didn't oppose it when members of their Party did the same thing in the past. In fact, the prior three times a Republican was elected president [Trump in 2016, and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004], House Democrats' heads exploded and they objected to the electoral votes in states Republicans won.

 In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D-CA), along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH), objected to Bush's 2004 electoral votes in Ohio. 

Thus, the chambers were forced to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours on whether to reject Ohio's electoral votes. Neither did, but the objection by Boxer and Tubbs serves as a modern precedent for what is likely to happen in Congress on Jan. 6 and the blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats where some praised Boxer's move including Sen Dick Durbin (D-IL) on the Senate floor:

"Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States."

But who went hard on Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) for challenging the electoral college results:

"The political equivalent of barking at the moon. This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be. The American people made a decision on Nov. 3rd and that decision must and will be honored and protected by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives."

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is another hypocrite who previously praised Boxer:

"I believe that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) have performed a very valuable public service in bringing this debate before the Congress. As Americans, we should all be troubled by reports of voting problems in many parts of the country," Van Hollen, who was then a House member, said in a press release. "I have been particularly concerned about the lack of a verifiable paper record in connection with electronic voting systems. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of legislation to solve that problem."

House Speaker Nancy "Frenetic Paws" Pelosi (D-CA), made similar comments at a Wednesday press conference.:

"I have no doubt that on next Wednesday, a week from today, that Joe Biden will be confirmed by the acceptance of the vote of the Electoral College as the 46th president of the United States," she said.

But in 2005 on the House floor Pelosi said lauded Boxer's challenge. 

"Today we are witnessing Democracy at work. This isn't as some of our Republican colleagues have referred to it, sadly, as frivolous. This debate is fundamental to our democracy," she said at the time. "The representatives of the American people in this house are standing up for three fundamental American beliefs: The right to vote is sacred; that a representative has a duty to represent his or her constituents; and that the rule of law is the hallmark of our nation."

Pelosi, however, made clear that "under the rule of law today this House will accept the election of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. ... There is absolutely no question about that. This isn't about in any way rejecting that outcome. ... It is instead to discuss the real problems with our electoral system."

Back to Meathead Reiner--he tweeted:

Every Senator and Congressperson who votes to overturn the election will be committing an act of Sedition and Treason. Their names will be recorded for history.

— Rob Reiner (@robreiner) January 2, 2021

Yes, whenever a Congressman votes, their votes are recorded for history; Reiner got that one correct. The treason and sedition part, not so much. Leftists like to think that whenever someone disagrees with what they want, those people are committing some crime against the country. 

Except when their side does the same thing.

A number of Republicans in the Senate and House plan to challenge the electoral college results on January 6th. They cite allegations of voter fraud, poor enforcement of voting laws, as well as other irregularities in the election.

At least 140 House Republicans are expected to join the effort to challenge the results, Breitbart News reported.

Reiner’s claim that GOP lawmakers will be committing “sedition and treason” is stupid and has no basis in law. 

Was it not sedition and treason four years ago when several House Democrats objected to the electoral college results of Trump’s 2016 presidential victory?

Rob Meathead Reiner has made numerous and unfounded accusations against President Trump, calling him a murderer and a white supremacist on social media. The man has no credibility.

C'mon, man, gimme a break. You know you want to follow Brain Flushings--it's free and worth every penny, no joke. And remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear. C'mon, check out the ads and give them a good, hard clicking.

Tweet

 

Dems introduce a bill to eliminate electoral college

Rep. Steve "I Haven't Read the Constitution" Cohen (Dummy-TN) wants to get rid of the Electoral College and doesn't know how to go about it. He introduced a bill that he believes can somehow abolish that which is contained in the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, replacing the procedure originally provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.

But the only way Rep. Stevie can get rid of the Electoral College is through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You can't just pass a bill. And if he tried to amend the Constitution, it would have to pass in the Senate, which is GOP land.

What's going on here--is he getting his factual information from Alexandria Occasionally-Coherent?

Cohen also wants to pass legislation that would prohibit presidents from pardoning themselves or their family members, especially those presidents who are referred to as "motherf***ers by freshmen congress members in front of their own kids.

Other leftist congress members are also going after President Trump, such as Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA). Sherm  introduced "articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, filing them as his first order of business in the new, Democrat-controlled House of Representatives." He did this without being able to clearly elucidate what "crime(s) or misdemeanors" Trump committed. But it sounds like good political theater.

Democrats have for long wanted a way to get around the electoral college, because it prevents the country from being controlled by major population centers which are Democrat strongholds.

If this ever happened, the country would be controlled by the coastal states.

The person most concerned about this is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who is against putting workers out of work: "Who's going to wire homes if they abolish that school?" she asked.

Well here we are in the start of a new year and the world still hasn't come to an end with President Trump in the White House, in spite of what the media and the left [but I repeat myself] would have you believe. 

I hope that you will  follow Brain Flushings throughout the year and feel free to comment on any issues of concern. Please subscribe and check out the sponsors on these pages too.




Tweet

Hillary's snowflakes still fighting Electoral College

The one in blue is still crying

There's nothing more enjoyable to me than to see photos of people crying over Hillary Clinton's presidential loss to Donald Trump. It gives me a modicum of faith that all is well with the nation.

A leftist-led attempt to overhaul the Electoral College could actually make it to the courtroom as a Harvard professor who ran as a dark-horse Democratic presidential candidate promises to legally change the electoral system. If successful, the voters on both coasts and illegal immigrants would have the final say in the nation's leadership. 

Hillary recently said she wants the system "eliminated" so that she might give it another shot in 2020 before she goes totally senile. But she doesn't want the entire system dismantled, but the winner-take-all system used by 48 states in awarding electors.

In other words, Hillary wants a system that would help her win next time, if there is a 'next time' for her. If Trump keeps his campaign promise however, she will be in the slammer.

The professor, Lawrence Lessig, said, in previewing his legal case to challenge the Electoral College, "With a winner-take-all, most of America is ignored."

Photo: Reuters

Lessig argues the current electoral system violates the 14th Amendment's one-man-one-vote principle as all but two states award all electors to the winner of the state's popular vote. And while he isn't decided which states to focus on (I bet it isn't going to be New York and California) he said 24 people have volunteered to be plaintiffs.

"We're looking for a Republican from a blue state whose vote never counts and a Democrat from a red state whose vote never counts," he said.

Although Lessig was for a very brief period, a Democratic candidate for president in the 2016 election, he insists this isn't a partisan endeavor and if you believe him, you probably are an avid reader of Slate and Media Matters. 

It would require a constitutional amendment for Lessig to win change in the current system. He prefers a proportional system where a losing candidate could still get a percentage of the state's electors based on the popular vote.

Defenders of the current system say that it provides stability.

Gary Rose, chairman of the political science department at Sacred Heart university said that "Under a district plan, we could see a number of third-party candidates emerge, competing for a narrow portion of the vote by just running in congressional districts. A proportional system would be a recipe for France, a multi-party system, with a plethora of small parties that are hardly bigger than an interest group."

Under those conditions, Rose said, presidential candidates would ignore the smaller states. "A national popular vote would be a detriment to the American people, and many voters would really feel disenfranchised if the campaign moved only to the urban areas," Rose said.

Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton's 232. But Clinton won the plurality of popular votes 48.5 percent to Trump's 46.4 percent. Ironically, under a district plan, Trump would have won 290 electoral votes and under a proportional system, he would have won 267 to Clinton's 265. A third party would have won six electoral votes and the House of Representatives would have had the final decision on the election.

With Lessig being a Democrat, his own analysis of a proportional system had Clinton winning 270 to 267. And while he says his reasoning has nothing to do with his political leaning, obviously it does.




Tweet

They're melting, they're melting

It's so, so very sad. So so. Shocked and extremely appalled snowflakes are incredibly upset over the prospect of having Donald Trump as their president. Some Hillary supporters, including her cheating husband, Bill, have turned to attacking the election outcome and are trying to delegitimize the election like Hillary did with her husband's victims.

Even Donna Brazile, who tried to influence the election by providing Hillary with the primary debate questions is upset over how the Russians "tainted" the election outcome. If anyone can speak to tainting, it's Ms. Brazile.

What a total bummer to think that Hillary Clinton, the Hillary Clinton, would lose to Donald Trump. 

How could such a crude, rude and inept dude con man be elected president? It's an unthinkable nightmare. How unfair.

The Russian and Comey reasoning didn't work, so it must be the system. Yes, the Electoral College is the problem . . . that must be it. Those freaking Founding Fathers. What do fathers know anyway? Hillary had more popular votes, so she's more popular and should be the next president. The first woman president, as she currently identifies her gender that way.

So big deal--Trump had more electoral votes--306 to Hillary's 232. Why is that allowed?

Because it keeps large populated states from over-representing the election outcome. California, for example, single-handedly turns Trump's plurality in the popular vote into a Clinton plurality.

The "fly-over" states have fewer people, but they need to have their say in the election, and with the electoral vote, they do.

Under our electoral-vote system we elected a national president, not California's choice for the office. Clinton voters need to understand that this election was legitimate just as Hillary Clinton urged Donald Trump to do after the third debate.

The Electoral College worked as it was supposed to work and Trump has now gotten all the votes he needed (270) and then some. The outcome was what America wanted and what America did not want--and that Donald Trump as president and Hillary Clinton as the "Second Place Runner Up."


Tweet

"Faithless elector" is a lie erector

There are a handful of electors who say they will not cast their electoral vote for Donald Trump. My theory is that these electors who refuse to follow the will of their constituents are doing it to pick up women, but I know they'll deny that.

The Republican "faithless elector" gained his 15 minutes of fame when he wrote a blistering op-ed swearing that he will not vote for President-elect Trump in the Electoral College. After he wrote the piece for The New York Times, he started getting more closely scrutinized over some of the claim he made of having been a firefighter on 9/11--another ploy to get himself some unsolicited sex.

Christopher Suprun, a Texas elector, wrote the piece on December 5th entitled "Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump." He cites his past as a firefighter on 9/11 as one reason for not voting for Trump on December 19th, although his state of Texas voted overwhelmingly for Trump on Election Day.

"Fifteen years ago, as a firefighter, I was part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks against our nation. That attack and this year's election may seem unrelated, but for me the relationship becomes clearer every day," the lying Suprun wrote, as a way of meeting "Miss Right."

He then goes on to call upon fellow Republican electors to deny Trump his needed 270 votes to win the White House, and asks that they back Gov. John Kasich, who has publicly made it clear he doesn't want the job.

As it turns out, the Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA reported that Suprun's LinkedIn page claims he was part of Manassas Fire Department in Sept. 2001, but discovered he wasn't part of that Fire Dept. until October 10th, and cited an anonymous first responder who knew Suprun and contradicted his claims. But this wasn't his only lie. 

"He claimed to be a first responder with the Manassas Park Fire Department on September 11, 2001 and personally told us stories 'I was fighting fire that day at the Pentagon.' No, I was on a medic unit that day at the Pentagon and you make a phone call to Manassas Park and you find out that he wasn't even employed there until October 2001," the source said.

Even if Suprun actually was hired by Manassas Park before 9/11, the fire chief there told WFAA that their department didn't respond to the Pentagon that horrible day.


The guy is a piece of work. He continued lying to try and cover up his first lie. Like the source told WFAA, it's the same thing as "stolen valor for the military."

Even now, his LinkedIn profile says that he's currently a paramedic with Freedom EMS in Dallas. WFAA did their research and found that no such company exists. A spokeswoman for Air Methods ambulance service, where Suprun's LinkedIn also claims he works said that he isn't employed there either.

Thus far, Suprun is the only elector to announce publicly that he intends to change his vote for Trump. He was hoping that his newly-found fame would get him a hot date--but all it has gotten him was outed.

Hey, New York Times, look up the word: 'vetting.' No wonder you're failing. 


Tweet

Sore losers look to undermine the electoral system

Sore losers like Jill Stein and other anti-Trumpers are pushing as hard as their sad losing bodies can push to invalidate his election with the Electoral College. Ironically, many of them didn't get their sore loser bodies to the polls to actually vote, but that doesn't stop them from trying to undermine the fabric of our electoral system.

Those who actually chose the President-elect, will meet on December 19th to make the results of the 2016 election official. As it stands, Trump won 306 electoral votes (needing 270 to win) and Hillary begrudgingly conceded the election, spoiling her fireworks party plans for Election Day night.

Hillary urged a smooth transition of power, as is the tradition, but a group of electors from Colorado and Washington known as the "Hamilton Electors" is trying to persuade other electors to go against their constituents in their districts, and take the election away from Trump and hand it to Clinton. 

That should start a nice, smooth transition of power--after the smoke clears.

On Monday, Chris Suprun, from Texas, was convinced to act unilaterally in spite of those in the majority in his district who voted for Trump.

Suprun said "I am here to elect a president, not a king," but he is acting as like an autocrat and apparently doesn't understand the difference between a democracy and a republic form of government. 

In fact, he lied when at first he said he'd support Trump.

In order for anti-Trump electors to have their way, they would need 37 electors to switch their vote or abstain. This would then throw the vote on the House and they would select the president.

If this happens, and Trump is no longer our next POTUS, celebrities who have moved out of the United States will likely return . . . all none of them.

Most states bind their electors to the state's popular vote, although Texas doesn't, so this should not be a problem for Trump.

According to Politico, Democratic electors are backing Ohio Governor John "Karate Chop" Kasich who ran an annoying campaign for president.

Suprun said he "would have to strongly consider someone like Kasich who has both executive and legislative experience bringing people together." 

Kasich tweeted that he isn't a candidate and urged electors not to vote for him. He'll have no problem from me.

I think it's about time for the nation to get over it--Trump won and he is who the republic voted for.

Tweet