Wednesday, November 21, 2012

WND: Wins the Oscar for Best Rag Impersonating a Newspaper! Congrats!

For those of you who don't know, there is a news website out there called World Net Daily that claims to be an independent news agency and is world-renowned for posting literally the most moronic and pathetic articles you will probably ever read on the net. To be honest, I feel a bit dumber every time I visit their site..

And they have added to that grand collection of crap with this piece today entitled, "How Obama can be stopped in Electoral College". Here is the brief point made in this point: Citing the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the author (Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation) claims that there is a section in the amendment that states that if for whatever reason, a quorum of the Electoral College electors (who actually do the voting after the general election) is not found than the results of the election are null and void. Phillips claims this is the "last chance" to stop President Obama from being elected President. (1) Interesting and provocative idea right? Here's the thing, I'm 99% sure he is completely and totally pulling this theory out of his proverbial ass.

Now to his credit, Mr. Phillips is a District Attorney in Tennessee which would normally suggests he knows a bit more about reading legal documents than the regular Joe or even a Poli-Sci major such as myself. The problem is, when I read the 12th Amendment's full text, I do see the section he is talking about but the "quorum" it mentions isn't talking about Electoral electors but to the House of Representatives who would vote for the President of the United States should the Electoral College be tied. Here is the full paragraph in question for my readers to look at for themselves:

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President."(2)

So yes, there is a reference to instances where this is no quorum, but in reference to there being no quorum in the House, not among the Electors in the first place.

But this article did get me to thinking, and one question keeps coming up: Why now? The election was two weeks ago and to think that such a political active and supposedly legal-minded person like Mr. Phillips just stumbled onto this "theory" all the sudden is just a little suspicious don't you think?

To me, this is a prime example of how desperate some Uber-Conservatives have become. Instead of acknowledging that President Obama won the election fair and square (which is disputed by those who work for the WND) and just sucking up and planning for the next election, these idiots are desperately trying to find some obscure legal clause to try and prevent THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

And that my readers is arguably the most disturbing element of this article, which strikes me as deeply ironic. Folks like Mr. Phillips claim they don't want the Federal Government intruding in their personal lives (taxes, health care, education, etc), but they believe that (assuming this theory is correct), that it is morally right to try and coerce Electors into voting against the MAJORITY OF VOTERS who re-elected President Obama by a margin of ~4 million votes over Mitt Romney. For a group that supposedly prides itself in advocating the liberties and freedoms of individual Americans, it's rather ironic that they have no moral quandary over disfranchising the 64 million Americans who voted for President Obama just to get their way. I would say that Mr. Phillips should be ashamed of himself but in this case I would just be wasting my breath on this Tea-Bagger (and I reserve that colorful nickname for Tea-Partiers who make their entire movement look like a bunch of morons).

Normally I would also say something like "shame on you" to WND for posting such a disturbing article but as long as it says "OBAMA IS EVIL", or "OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FAKE!" or something similar, WND will post it without fail because that's apparently what "independent" news agencies do..

Absolutely and predictably pathetic. Good for WND for at least being consistent...


Any opinions and/or views expressed in the above piece are purely those of the author and not of any political or non-political organization. Any re-posting of this work MUST include this disclaimer.

No comments:

Post a Comment