“Tolerant” Hillary supporters have redefined the definition of the word.
In Hillary’s world, tolerance is actually, “do all to disrupt.”
Is this something we should still have to swallow? Many anti-Trumpsters are harassing and threatening various state electors.
These threats have included physical harm in too many cases.
Activists, although not identifying themselves as pro-Clinton, have set their sights on overturning the presidential results. From state to state, where the electoral points went to Donald Trump, cupcakes are crying.
Arizona as the Example
Source Credit: Libertarian Republic
Arizona has seen a barrage of attacks on the eleven Republican presidential electors. These electors are put in place by the Arizona Republican Party, they are men and women scheduled to cast their votes on December 19th.
Not since 2004 has any elector cast against the party choice in the electoral college. However, Hillary’s army is pressuring hard for a repeat.
The question is, will their tactics work?
George Soros, who is arguably one of the most powerful people on earth and the financier of the extreme left, has finger prints all over this shadow movement of violence.
Photo credit: Zerohedge
Since the mid-1980s in particular, he has used his immense influence to help reconfigure the political landscapes around the world. In some cases playing a key role in toppling regimes that had held the reins of government for years, even decades.
Total harassment began about a week ago.
Now?
“Bam! It’s hardcore,” one of the Arizona’s electors, Robert Graham, stated. Graham added that most of the calls come from out of state.
The liberal camp’s demands are egregious. One caller even called voting against Mr. Trump as being patriotic. Interesting. Patriotism equals anarchy?
Thankfully, ethical electors refuse to succumb.
The Way the Process Works…or Should Work
Source Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Our system was created so electoral votes go to the party that won the state, where the final votes are fomally cast by electoral representatives.
For instance, if a state had thirty-eight Republican electors, but thirty-six of them voted in opposition to the majority choice of that state’s people, the 270 overall electoral college needed to win, could be affected.
But ethical electors stand by their promise to represent. One writer put it this way.
“It should be understood that those individuals tapped as elector nominees are not just random people; they are almost always hard-core party loyalists.”
Conservatives intrinsically are people of conscience — including and especially as it relates to the electoral process.
There may be a few, like the Republican elector in Texas who says he will not vote for Trump. He believes he is voting his conscience. But what about his conscientious’ commitment to stand behind the voters in his state?
Maybe he should resign as the elector. I suggest he let someone else vote. Someone who will follow the will of the winning party and fulfill his obligation.
How do you feel about the attacks on the electors for December 19th? Do the electors have a moral or ethical obligation to fulfill their promises?
