Published on December 31st, 2018 | by Cliff Kincaid
The new leader of the anti-Trump resistance in the Senate, Mitt Romney, will take the oath of office January 3. The former Massachusetts Governor and failed GOP presidential candidate represents what could be called the reemergent Rockefeller wing of the GOP.
You may recall that Romney delivered the most scathing anti-Trump speech by a Republican during the 2016 election cycle, calling Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.” Romney wrote in his wife’s name on Election Day 2016 rather than vote for Trump. He has said that he is not ready to endorse the president for reelection in 2020.
After Trump was elected, Romney was summoned for an interview for a position of some kind in the Trump Administration. Romney even got a follow-up interview with President-elect Trump. “Romney got played,” one journalist noted. It was payback. When nothing materialized, Romney went to Utah to plot his political comeback.
One day after we recorded our new video, “Can Trump Survive Until 2020?,” which looks at the background of Never-Trump Senator Romney, we noticed with interest that an anti-Trump Washington Post journalist by the name of Jennifer Rubin wrote about how Romney is “the ideal person” to fight Trump’s agenda in the Senate. The liberal writer said Romney “has a chance to begin his party’s revival, contain a lawless president, and prevent domestic and international calamities.” She explained, “The Senate has a principle, sanity and gravitas deficit created by the passing of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and enlarged by the retirements of Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. Romney is the ideal person to fill that void — perhaps the only one who can. But he doesn’t have to operate solo.”
She went on to suggest that Republican Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Maine “can be enlisted in an effort” to stall Trump’s agenda.
Of these, Collins is already a power-broker, having cast the deciding vote for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He promised her that he would be defer to previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion and gay rights, and he delivered with his recent ruling in favor of Planned Parenthood. Gardner made a name for himself by stalling various Trump nominees in exchange for a promise to accept legalization of marijuana on a national basis. Gardner’s marijuana bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who just entered the 2020 presidential race.
Republicans such as those listed by Rubin and led by Romney could help make an impeachment conviction of Trump a strong possibility in the new Senate. We should remember that one version of Nixon’s fall from office, as detailed in Gary Allen’s famous book, The Rockefeller Family, was that members of Congress, financial interests, and others associated with the wealthy Rockefeller family maneuvered to force the resignation of President Nixon. After Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment, Vice President Ford was sworn in as President and named Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. Rockefeller had unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1960, 1964, and 1968.
Could something like this happen with Trump?
On the most recent edition of our America’s Survival TV show, investigative journalist Steve Baldwin described Romney’s record of fake conservatism and how he could posture as a reasonable Republican. “He portrayed himself during his campaigns as a conservative,” Baldwin said of Romney, “but his record as governor [of Massachusetts] was very, very weak. In fact, he led the country on three of the left’s most cherished issues — cap and trade, gay marriage, and socialized medicine. Some of this legislation served as a model for national versions of those same policies. He really is the leader of the RINOs in America today. With the Senate barely under Republican control, Romney is now in a position to break off a few key senators and cause Trump trouble as Trump pursues an America First agenda.”
In an article headlined, “How Mitt Romney could wind up running the United States 6 years after losing the presidential election,” Elaine Kamarck noted, “Republican Senator Romney will have what no other Republican Senator currently has, a Republican constituency that does not like President Trump. Trump came in third in the Republican primary in Utah in 2016 and in the general election a large number of voters voted for the independent and Mormon conservative Evan McMullin, rather than pull the lever for Trump or Hillary.” McMullin, a former CIA operations officer, received 21 percent of the vote, compared to 45 percent for Trump and 27 percent for Hillary.
Baldwin, former California legislator and executive director of the Council for National Policy, wrote an entire book on Romney that was ultimately rejected by a conservative publishing house that was fearful of offending establishment Republicans. In one of the chapters, “The Buying of a Movement,” he alleged that Romney captured the 2012 GOP presidential nomination not only by falsely advertising himself as a conservative but by funneling donations from his family foundation to influential conservative groups.
Groups like my own America’s Survival, Inc. had published documentary evidence of Barack Hussein Obama’s communist connections back in 2008. Romney didn’t win the GOP nomination in that year. But Arizona Senator John McCain, who did win the nomination, wasn’t interested in bringing any of that to the public’s attention. He lost an easily winnable race against Obama.
In 2012, when Romney won the nomination and ran against Obama, Joel Gilbert released a popular documentary “Dreams from My Real Father,” drawing on our material and going into substantial detail about Obama’s Marxist roots. Gilbert had argued that the right strategy to defeat Obama was to expose his Marxist views, including the role of communist Frank Marshall Davis in molding Obama’s political philosophy. But Romney and top Republicans disagreed. Karl Rove told Republican donors, “If you say he’s a socialist, they’ll go to defend him. If you call him a ‘far out left-winger,’ they’ll say, ‘no, no, he’s not.’” Rove said that Republicans had to “adopt a respectful tone” in criticizing Obama.
By contrast, Gilbert argued, “If Republicans had made Obama’s Marxist agenda and personal background the main issues of the campaign, Americans would have had a much clearer understanding of the choice between American values and Marxism.”
Romney has now followed-up his failed 2012 presidential campaign with a successful run for the Senate from Utah, the base of his church and its wealth. Mike Kennedy, a state lawmaker, ran against Romney and had tried to warn Utah voters during the primary that Romney was a carpetbagger and flip-flopper. Then, during the campaign, independent candidate Tim Aalders argued that Romney was actually a “progressive” who was out-of-step with conservatives.
Sam Bushman, host of the Utah-based Liberty Roundtable radio show, says, “I believe Romney is still young enough that he thinks he has another shot at maybe being president or staying long-term as leader of the Senate. He doesn’t care which as long as he maintains political power.”
At the current time, according to the latest McLaughlin & Associates survey, 72 percent of Republicans favor Trump in the 2020 race and only 9 percent back Romney. That suggests Romney’s approach will be to get accolades from the Washington Post and other liberal media by leading the anti-Trump Republicans in the Senate. After the Democratic-controlled House impeaches Trump, Romney could emerge as the Republican Senator arguing for Trump to resign for the sake of the Republican Party.
At that point, Romney could decide to run for president again. Or perhaps he would settle for the vice presidency under President Mike Pence. It would be a case of Romney’s revenge.
Many seem bewildered by the anti-Trump riots and demonstrations that have covered the nation since the 2016 election. And many keep trying to find a reasonable response. Give it up. You can’t reason with them with words.
Here is my take. They know full well that they aren’t going to overturn the election. These privately funded forces are being used to create pressure to destroy the Electoral College so they won’t have to deal with it next election. This is how the Left operates. Make a big deal over here to force the hidden agenda over there. The plan is to make enough trouble that Congress will move to abolish the EC to get some peace.
For clues on who is behind this effort one only has to watch to see which member of Congress would propose such action. The answer, of course, was California Senator Barbara Boxer. It only took a week after the election for her to come to the rescue of the broken and distraught Left.
The danger is real and gaining ground. But it didn’t start with the 2016 election result. A campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and “let the people elect the president,” has been gaining steam for several years. A group called “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ started in 2006, has won commitments from eleven states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. These include Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, California, New York, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Connecticut. These states control 172 electoral votes. They only need states representing 98 more electoral votes to join and the Electoral College will be a thing of the past. Meanwhile, such legislation is under consideration in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arizona, to name a few.
When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral votes would have to pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any state’s bill could take effect.
As usual, it’s easy to get people to join this cause – yet another sound bite based on emotion rather than knowledge or logic. “Let the people decide.” “It’s the American way.” “It’s Democracy at work.” Yep, that’s why America was never set up as a democracy. Here’s another sound bite for you – “Democracy is a lynch mob.” Here’s another one – “Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.” Majority rule violates the rights of minorities. It’s not a good thing. Get the picture?
The United States was created by the individual sovereign states. They were already free and independent governments on their own. As they came together to create a central government they feared it would grow too strong and overpower the states, making them subjugated to the central government. So, to prevent that, the states created the Electoral College to make the election of the President a STATE election.
Throughout history, certain factions have challenged the legality of the Electoral College. Opponents point out that our President is actually elected by 538 virtually unknown people who are members of 51 small delegations in fifty States and the District of Columbia. Moreover, in most states, the electors are not even bound to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. In fact, many Constitutional scholars believe that’s just what the founders intended, 538 independent thinkers, bound to no one. There is reason and logic behind the idea.
The Founding Fathers, particularly those from small States, were very concerned that they would be smothered by the larger states. Under the representative republic (not a democracy) established by the founders, the United States is made up of fifty sovereign States. Under the Constitution, except for limited powers specifically defined for the central government, power for the rule of law is intended to reside in the States.
To deal with the problem, the founders decided on a compromise that would establish two chambers for the Congress; the House of Representatives, whose size would be dictated by the population in each state and the Senate in which every state would get two representatives, regardless of its size or population. You see, in the beginning, the states appointed Senators to be their representatives in Congress. But, like these so-called scholars of today who want to wreck the Electoral College, previous “experts” came up with the idea that Senators should be elected by the people – “It’s only fair,” went the mantra! The result is an imperial Senate that answers to no one but their own elite club members. That’s what happens when you mess with the real genius of the Constitution.
The same problem arose in deciding how to select a President, the one nationally-elected official. Here again, there was the fear that election by popular vote would overwhelm the will of smaller States. Again, a compromise was reached to address the issue in a fair and equitable manner in order to maintain the power of the states. Each state was assigned a number of presidential electoral votes equal to its representation in the House and the Senate. In each state, the electors would vote for a President and Vice President. The candidate receiving the largest number of electoral votes would be elected.
Under the plan, the connection to the popular vote was the selection of state electors. The popular vote was to be used to select individuals trusted by the people to select the President. Each presidential candidate has a slate of electors committed to them. As the people vote for a candidate, they are actually electing his/her slate of electors. Again, the selection of electors goes directly to local control of the process. Under the Constitution, even the smallest state was assured at least three votes in the process. To provide a further check to protect the smaller states, in the event no candidate won a majority of the electoral vote, the names of the top five would go to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation would cast one vote for one of the candidates. In this process each state, again, is equal.
To understand the Electoral College one must realize that the Founders considered the states as the dominant power in the nation. Election of the office of President was a bit like the selection of the Chairman of the Board, with the states serving as the board of directors for the nation. The great mistake Electoral College opponents make is to believe the President was supposed to be elected by the people. It was never the plan.
There are fundamental and often regional differences in how Americans view the role of government and the leaders they elect to run it. Little wonder those who seek to strengthen the power of the central government prefer that elections be decided by the popular vote. It’s a great sound bite- but the results will not give “the people” the “fair” result they desire.
Such a move will eliminate the power of individual states in favor of elections decided by the population of large, politically liberal cities. I’ve actually heard it said by residents of California, San Francisco, in particular, “why do we even let people in Ohio and Iowa vote?” Such elitism is behind the “National Popular Vote” movement which apparently believes that only the East and West Coasts count. The rest is just flyover country.
Keep these facts in mind as we watch the enforcement of Sustainable Development policies that lead to Smart Growth cities. The stated plans of such ideas are that most people will eventually be ‘persuaded” to leave the rural areas and migrate to the cities. In addition, we now are witnessing the invasion of illegal immigrants who normally land in such communities and swell their size.
The “feel good” propaganda of the National Popular Vote movement insists that a popular vote would not change the face of the nation. However, by design or not, the fact is their scheme plays right into the hands of the Sustainablists who openly seek top-down control through the establishment of megacities. By forcing the massive majority of citizens into such areas, a majority vote in just a few will drown any other area in the nation.
In such a planned agenda for the 21st Century, individuals living in the majority of the nation’s territory will quickly learn how little their “popular vote” counts if the Electoral College is abandoned by the “National Popular Vote” scheme. Those smaller states (and therefore their votes) may have no impact on the election of the President, just as our founders feared. Control by a few over the many can only be defined as tyranny.
The abolishment of the Electoral College would, in fact, establish an election tyranny giving control of the government to the massive population centers of the nation’s Northeastern sector, along with the area around Los Angeles. If these sections of the nation were to control the election of our nation’s leaders, the voice of the ranchers and farmers of the Mid and Far West would be lost, along with the values and virtues of the South. It would also mean the end of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.
Not happy to even let the states decide if they want to support the idea of the National Popular vote or not, the hard Left has manufactured the unrest in the streets to pressure a fast solution. In 2016 Senator Boxer answered the call with legislation to end the Electoral College. Such demands to end it masquerade as the answer to the people’s unrest. If achieved the end, the result will have nothing to do with Donald Trump. He is just the convenient excuse.
Allow that to happen now and the great silent majority of middle America in this nation will never again have a fair say in who is elected our president. And that is the true goal of today’s unrest.