There are currently influential despotic oligarchies in the federal Electoral system working against the ultimate determining will of the American electorate, the combined eligible U.S. citizen voters of the fifty States, for the 2016 Presidential Election. Why is this so? The U.S. Constitution, in Article 2, Section 1, provides for the Electoral College and the manner in which the electors are to be chosen; while the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defines, and specifies, the duties of group of chosen electors equal to the combined number of U.S. Representatives and Senators from each State, which will assemble on December 19, 2016 to cast its votes to select the President of the United States. The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that the vote of the combined Electors of each State will, in fact, reflect the popular vote of each State yielding a selected President and Vice-President. This particular requirement is based on an accepted interpretation of the convoluted language contained in 14th Amendment, Section 2, which essentially states that, if the vote of anyone 21 years of age or older in a State, who is eligible to vote in a Presidential election, is not used to determine the application of the total vote of that state’s combined electoral vote count, the law has not been applied properly. In other words, if the electoral vote of a State does not perfectly reflect the State’s popular vote, the law has not been applied properly.
According to the foregoing laws, the way a State electorate votes is the way the Presidential electors, chosen by that State’s legislature, should vote for U.S. President and Vice-President; according to that State’s popular vote. While true, the preceding mandate will, in the current year, be subject to how the individual electors behave on Monday, December 19, 2016. For what if the electors for the State of California refuse to vote for Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump if he wins the popular vote? What if they get together and conspire to cast their collective votes for crooked Hillary by collectively regarding the winning Trump-Pence ticket as a renegade third-party? What if the electors of the key States, such as Illinois, do the same thing? Would the election be regarded as fraudulent in such a case?
While the balance of U.S. Constitutional government hinges, as it does, on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election, the many dark and scurrilous forces, openly seen and clandestinely hidden, will surely be at work to manipulate the course of the election through the illegal behaviors of devious people. While such individuals, as Senator Marco Rubio, were privy to the startling news of Hillary’s criminal campaign fraud operations, which the undercover video wrought by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas revealed, how could Rubio declare to Donald Trump on national television, “There is proof of election rigging?” The proof has been clearly revealed to the American electorate that Hillary is conducting an illegal campaign to rig the Presidential election in her favor, so why isn’t the FBI investigating ALL of the people Hillary and her cronies have hired to do her dirty work?
Remember the Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Election of 1960? When all the votes had been counted, Kennedy won by only 112,827 votes. All through the 1960 election campaign, accusations had been hurled at Kennedy by Nixon’s campaign for voter fraud in seven major States. The fraud accusations about stuff-ballot boxes stemmed mainly from allegations that Joseph Kennedy, JFK’s father, had financed the vote for thousands of illegal aliens and had arranged for thousands of voters to vote as many as three times, vicariously, as dead people, in different States. While Nixon should have contested the vote count, he didn’t. The same thing supposedly happened during the Johnson-Goldwater Presidential Election of 1964, as post-election investigation determined that the Democratic Party had resurrected more than 20,000 dead Americans for voting purposes. In the book by J. Evetts Haley, “A Texan Looks at Lyndon,” Mr. Haley hurled allegations at LBJ and the Democratic Party for such campaign fraud. It turned-out that J. Evetts Haley was vindicated for his accusations by several prominent historians during the late-1970s.
The integrity of the 2016 Presidential Election will be predicated concurrently on the honesty and uprightness of the people running the Democratic and Republican Party campaigns, and on whether the Presidential electors will vote, on December 19th, the way they are supposed to vote, which is in accordance with the prevailing law. If the Democratic Party is allowed by federal law enforcement to continue doing Hillary’s dirty fraudulent work (Hillary had to have known about the criminal acts the O’Keefe video revealed), as it has already done with a degree of success (inciting violence at the Chicago Trump rally), there will be illegal aliens, non-U.S. citizens, voting in the election in a number of States, and possibly more violence incited on election-day. Remember that one of the two men fired by the DNC, two days after the O’Keefe video was aired, was an ex-convict who had been allowed to meet with Obama for strategy meetings over 350 times at the White House since 2009.
Certainly, California’s 55 electoral votes should go Donald Trump if he wins the California popular vote. But Steven Nelson, of “U.S. News and World Report,” has written a cogent article emphasizing the hard possibility that Trump might win the popular vote in California, but not the electoral vote due to rogue California Presidential electors who will regard Trump as a third-party candidate not representing the Republican Party establishment. This would be both illegal and wrong, but it could possibly happen if Hillary somehow manipulates the electoral vote.
Source by Norton Nowlin