Signs Point To Democrat Wave Building For 2018

2018 is shaping up to be a year of great uncertainty. What will happen to Obamacare? Will tax reform become law? What of the myriad investigations of Russian interference in the election? Along with these questions, there is growing doubt about the Republican Party’s ability to hold its congressional majorities in the 2018 elections.

Josh Kraushaar of National Journal writes that many House Republicans are “increasingly alarmed” that Republican congressmen in vulnerable seats are not doing the fundraising work that is needed to defend themselves from Democrat challengers.

“Of the 53 House Republicans facing competitive races, according to Cook Political Report ratings, a whopping 21 have been outraised by at least one Democratic opponent in the just-completed fundraising quarter,” Kraushaar writes. “That’s a stunningly high number this early in the cycle, one that illustrates just how favorable the political environment is for House Democrats.”

Among the Republicans Kraushaar mentions by name are Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), who only raised about a third as much as his leading Democrat rival, John Culberson (R-Texas), Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) and Leonard Lance (R-N.J.). These seats are all rated as “lean Republican” by the Cook Political Report, but the incumbent Republicans are falling far behind Democrat challengers in fundraising.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who has been criticized for his support of Vladimir Putin and Russia, has only $600,000 in the bank according to the report. His Orange County, California district is in an expensive media market where much more advertising money will be needed. Rohrabacher’s seat is currently rated as a tossup.

Adding to the Republican finance problems are primary challenges from the right. Rohrabacher will be facing a Republican primary challenger in addition to a Democrat in the general election. Former White House strategist and sometimes Trump supporter Steve Bannon is supporting primary challenges to many sitting Republicans.

Republicans currently hold a 46-seat majority in the House of Representatives. If Democrats can win 23 seats, it would tip the balance of power in the lower chamber. Per the Cook Political Report, Republicans currently have 12 tossup seats in the House. This includes two open seats in Washington and Michigan. An additional 23 seats lean Republican, but this includes the four seats mentioned earlier where the Republican incumbent is likely to be outspent by large margins.

In contrast, Cook only rates three Democrat seats as tossup. These are all open due to retirements. Six seats lean Democrat and one of these is Florida’s 27th congressional district where a Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, is retiring.

In fact, Ros-Lehtinen is only one of 18 House Republicans who have announced their plans to retire in 2018. Cook’s David Wasserman notes that so far only four of these retirements are in vulnerable districts, but, with a months to go before the primary season starts, that could change.

In the Senate, things are a bit more solid for Republicans. The only two tossup seats are Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.). Democrats have three seats rated as tossups (Donnelly in Indiana, McCaskill in Missouri, and Manchin in West Virginia) so they would have to run the table to bring the Senate to a tie. In that case, Vice President Pence would cast the deciding vote on legislation, but Republican bills would be even more vulnerable to defections by mavericks like Rand Paul (R-Ky.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The reason for the Republican fundraising slump is likely two-fold. Donald Trump’s popularity is not good. This is especially true in swing districts held by vulnerable Republicans. Some Republican incumbents may be tainted by their association with the unpopular president.

Even among Republican voters, the current Congress is not popular. The failure to pass any sort of Obamacare reform bill cemented the perception of a do-nothing Congress. A CNN poll last month showed that twice as many Republican voters support the president as Republican congressional leaders.

As the congressional stalemate has become more apparent, Republican donors have closed their wallets. The party is pinning its hopes for 2018 on the success of tax reform since it has few other accomplishments to show for its majority. A senior House Republican strategist said that he expects many more Republicans to retire if tax reform fails.

It is far from certain that Democrats will take control of the House in 2018, but current trends are not looking good for vulnerable Republicans. If the Democrats win control of the House, it would fundamentally change Donald Trump’s presidency as the Republican takeover of the House in 2010 did for Barack Obama. More ominously for President Trump, a Democratic majority would open the door for a possible impeachment.

Former IT Contractors May Be Blackmailing Democratic House Members

A family-owned IT business that formerly contracted to 32 Democratic House offices is the subject of an investigation into the theft and leaking of sensitive information. Some even fear that the contractor may be blackmailing House members and are dismayed at the lack of attention the story is getting.

Imran Awan and three relatives were colleagues until police banned them from computer networks at the House of Representatives after suspicion the brothers accessed congressional computers without permission.

Five Capitol Hill technology aides told The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group that members of Congress have displayed an inexplicable and intense loyalty towards the suspects who police say victimized them. The baffled aides wonder if the suspects are blackmailing representatives based on the contents of their emails and files, to which they had full access.

The whole mind-blowing story began when an anonymous IT vendor who worked with other Democratic offices approached the offices served by the Awans and offered his services at a fraction of the price that Awan and his family were charging. When the offices declined, the vendor began to suspect that the Awans were blackmailing staffers into keeping them on.

“I don’t know what they have, but they have something on someone. It’s been months at this point” with no arrests, said Pat Sowers, who has managed IT for several House offices for 12 years. “Something is rotten in Denmark.”

Sowers and other IT service providers suspect that the Awans held power over the congressional offices they serviced because they had possession of sensitive, and in some cases embarrassing, information that belonged to the clients. Apparently the Awans also dealt directly with representatives to hold sway over office staffers.

One Democratic IT staffer said Awan “would come in and only help the member — he’d tell me this — because staff come and go. There was one staffer whose computer was broken and said, ‘I’m not going to pay my invoices until you fix my computer,’ and Imran went to the member, and they fired [the staffer who complained] that day. Imran has that power.”

Awan’s company would keep prices high by failing to keep inventory. Some offices would pay for phone and data lines that had not been in use for years. Some staffers’ iPhones were linked to the same iTunes account at Awan’s office, and some computers held the express purpose of remoting to off-site servers and sending data to those servers – an act which violates House rules.

Many of Awan’s clients within the House stuck with the status quo in hopes that the situation would “blow over,” while others lived in fear that the Awan family would go public with the information they had. It’s blackmail with a decidedly 21st century twist.

“There’s no question about it: If I was accused of a tenth of what these guys are accused of, they’d take me out in handcuffs that same day, and I’d never work again,” the anonymous manager said.

YIKES: Polling Shows More Americans Want Democrats In Control Of The House Of Representatives

Quinnipiac has released a poll showing respondents’ opinions of Congress and the President, and it’s not pretty. For starters, let’s look at what voters have said about the House of Representatives:

By a 54 – 38 percent margin, American voters want the Democratic Party to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives. This is the widest margin ever measured for this question in a Quinnipiac University poll, exceeding a 5 percentage point margin for Republicans in 2013.

If Democrats had won control of the U.S. Senate in the 2016 elections, the country would be in a better place than it is now, 41 percent of voters say, while 27 percent say it would be in a worse place and 30 percent say it would be the same.

Yikes! It stings, doesn’t it? But that’s not all. President Trump is losing the good graces of the electorate according to respondents to the poll:

American voters, who gave President Donald Trump a slight approval bump after the missile strike in Syria, today give him a near-record negative 36 – 58 percent job approval rating, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Critical are big losses among white voters with no college degree, white men and independent voters.

[…]

“There is no way to spin or sugarcoat these sagging numbers,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

We know that polling can’t always be trusted or taken at face value – and, yes, the party out of power tends to do better in off-year elections – but this one indicates that the writing is on the wall for the GOP. Both Trump and Congressional Republicans need to get it together to avoid squandering the historic gains in the 2016 election.

It’s not enough to coast on the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and some foreign policy successes. The GOP must lead, be proactive, and somehow get in front of the public relations battle to reverse this trend. It would be a shame to lose 2018 after the triumphs of 2016.

Tax reform is a good way to start. Just saying.

Healthcare Insurance vs. the Free Market Solution

In the Gospels, Jesus tells his disciples a parable:

A Jewish gentleman was traveling from one town to another and was brutally attacked, robbed and left lying bloody on the side of the road. Several other Jews walked by and seeing this poor man lying on the ground moaning, walked on the other side of the road all the while ignoring his pleas for assistance. A man from Samaria came alone, and taking pity rushed to offer aid. While assessing the situation, the Samaritan offered to take him to the next town for care. As part of his screening process, he asked the Jew if he had insurance. Having to bend down just to hear the reply through broken teeth and swollen lips, he was told “I don’t have insurance, my son has a pre-existing condition. We were denied.”  Standing up, dusting off his outer robe, and with great sadness, he said “I’m sorry my good man, I wish I could help you. I would have thought your God treated all Jews the same. I guess not. But if you can’t help yourself, I can’t help you either. Turning on his heel, he strode away, confident in his belief that once again, the dynamics of the free market had prevailed.

Obviously, that is not the true parable. However, if you listened to many conservatives, you would think they would prefer this outcome to what really transpired in the parable.

Examining the Good Samaritan’s actions reveals three very arresting details.

  1. The man interrupted his trip, and expended his time to take the wounded man to an inn.
  2. The Good Samaritan spent his own money to obtain immediate care for the man.
  3. Equally important, he told the innkeeper to continue caring for the man until he was well, and on his honor he would return and pay any additional incurred cost. 

If I were less reverent I would call this the first single payer example. But it’s not. It’s not a parable about American insurance and healthcare, and wasn’t meant to be. What it is, is a parable about the meaning of love. A new definition of neighbor, as well as defining love for that neighbor. Love so deep, you are willing to spend your time,  your funds, and your future funds to provide for someone beside yourself and your family.

I used this an an opening to make a point. It is a rebuttal to the conservative argument that the healthcare insurance market should be legislated by “free market solutions”.  This free market doctrine is disingenuous and a false equivalency. The definition of a free market solution generally means allowing the market to choose their clientele as well as to adjust their pricing to make maximum profit.

As it concerns healthcare insurance, what the conservative’s free market doctrine really means is this:

“I resent families with pre-exisiting health issues presenting me with added cost, and I am unwilling to pay any additional dollars to further that effort. I am adamantly against paying additional taxes in order to partially support their healthcare premiums, no matter how outrageously priced. Furthermore, I am not willing to have my insurance premiums cost adjusted one dollar higher . Even if this means healthcare would become affordable and available to the small percentage of those blessed with pre-existing health issues.

I’m sure this sounds harsh to many of my conservative friends. I’m equally certain it seems quite heretical to a few of my fellow Christian brethren.  And to their shame, some of these conservatives have mocked Jimmy Kimmel. From personal experience, I can say with 100% confidence, Mr. Kimmel didn’t bring up his son casually nor did he take any joy speaking about him. No decent good man wants to use his son as a talking point. Special needs kids are not pawns to be used in order to emotionally manipulate an argument, and I know of no parents who would even entertain such a thought.

ObamaCare was a horrible horrible piece of legislation. Any politician who participated in writing that travesty should be ashamed. However, it did open up an national discussion that was long overdue.

This is the ultimate healthcare conundrum for a civilized gracious and merciful society. Should we be content if healthcare insurance legislation only takes care of most of the people, but not all? Or are we as a people willing to spend our own money, (taxation or higher premiums) to offer assistance to those who face exorbitantly priced premiums. 

Failure to obtain adequate affordable healthcare insurance often puts families on a generational downward trajectory. Often these families are left with no money for decent clothing, education assistance, or college tuition. As a result, children (both special needs and their other siblings) often suffer long-term consequences.  This can result in each future generation starting out behind the eight ball as well. This is simply not the American ethos as we were raised to understand it.

It seems the House will pass new healthcare legislation today. I don’t know if the bill is good or bad. From past experience, I don’t trust Congress to get this right and certainly not now; given their process writing it. Intuitively, $8 billion dollars doesn’t sound adequate, given the fact that each state will once again control insurance rating and premiums. If past history is a guide, state politicians will simply allow health insurance firms the freedom to adjust their premiums to collect those available federal dollars, all the while providing the minimum amount of coverage allowable. This, regardless of how many House Republicans promise differently.

And they still haven’t answered the crucial question.

Will they commit to raising this funding commensurate with the annual percentage insurance premiums increase?

If not, then the downward spiral continues. They are once again trying to deceive their constituents with a single year fix, so they can go home and not be bombarded with this issue during town hall meetings.

Undoubtably, later today and throughout the next few weeks, conservatives will wax eloquent about this legislation being utter doctrinal heresy. Good on em. That is their right. But please understand this, at the center of the opposing argument lies one undeniable truth; it’s their money and the government shouldn’t be allowed to take it to provide assistance to someone else in need. In the end, this is not a sustainable argument in today’s America.

As I said, I am not pro or con for today’s legislation. However, in the healthcare insurance arena, I do find the free market solution doctrine fatally specious. I’m afraid that similar to the ObamaCare disaster 2010 election, the tale of the tape will come in 2020.

 

House Republicans Just Unanimously Joined Democrats In Woman-Shaming

The House of Representatives, Tuesday, passed H.R. 1174, furtively titled “Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act of 2017” on a voice vote.

The bill mandates that “certain public buildings” must provide a lactation room suitable for a mother to breastfeed a baby, out of sight of the public. It was introduced by hyper-liberal D.C. at-large Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

A voice vote is essentially a unanimous passage, where nobody can claim a “Nay” on the roll call–it’s fair to say that every conservative GOP Member of Congress voted to pass a bill that shames women for doing what women do naturally: raise their children as their bodies are uniquely equipped to do.

Why is it that our society puts up with so-called liberated women wearing vagina hats, publicly “shouting their abortion,” portrayal of women in vile pornography (sometimes calling it art), and prostitution (referred to as “sex workers”) but cannot bear watching a mother feed her baby?

In 2008, Erick Erickson was a member of the Macon City Council. As a lawyer, political pundit, and public servant, he fought (and won) against the “massage parlors” dotting the landscape with billboards along I-75 in Central Georgia. He tied the issue to slavery in a piece called “Sex, Slaves, and Spas

The salient points: Sex trafficking was an $8 billion business in 2008. “Progressive” countries that legalized prostitution found that it causes sex trafficking instances to skyrocket (this should be both logical and predictable to anyone who understands human nature).

Liberals always (and by “always” I mean every single time) side with women being freed and liberated from gender roles and societal constructs created by a paternalistic culture. First of all, that’s total rubbish. And second of all, anything that smacks of natural function that comports with biology and physiology is grouped into that “gender role” trash bin.

One man and one woman in a lifelong, committed marriage to raise a family? It’s anathema to them. A woman committing herself to taking care of her children? A prison! A woman publicly displaying maternal instincts and behavior like breastfeeding a child? Away with her!

It’s literally Aldous Huxley’s dystopian “A Brave New World” come to life, where “mother” is a pornographic term, while group sex is an act of worship.

Now Congress has joined this progressive chorus of woman-shaming (I should say “mother-shaming”). They’ve committed American taxpayer dollars for the maintenance and setting aside of public property to hide women away while they perform their shameful, vulgar, maternal duty.

Paul wrote in Romans 1, “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

Our society worships the centerfold, the prostitute, and the porn star. Our leaders call objectifying women, “locker-room talk.” When Congress agrees to allocate money to hide women doing the most wholesome thing in the world (literally), our society has just taken a step toward Huxley’s dystopia. Next we will see laws making public breastfeeding a crime, and forcing businesses to provide lactation rooms.

Listen, I’m not saying that women should display their breasts and make a show. Although in many (most?) foreign countries it’s not-a-big-deal to the point that women do exactly that all the time–there are places where a modicum of modesty is appropriate. For example, in a church service (my church provides “cry rooms” and nursing mother rooms), or a movie theater.

But providing a specific “lactation room” in public buildings sends the message that women must use that room to breastfeed. It’s not by their choice, it’s shaming. Katherine McKinney wrote in Huffington Post “if you don’t support breastfeeding in public, you don’t support breastfeeding.” What’s telling here is she prefaced her statement with “it’s not going to make me popular.” Liberals want everything to be a “right,” except motherhood.

In 2011, Simone Dos Santos was told by two security guards that she couldn’t breastfeed her baby in the hallway of a D.C. government building. It’s not illegal to breastfeed in the hallways of D.C. public buildings. But now, courtesy of Congress, if this bill becomes law, Dos Santos and anyone else in D.C. will be shamed into a small room that will “be shielded from public view, be free from intrusion, and contain a chair, a working surface, and (if the building is supplied with electricity) an electrical outlet.”

Sounds like a shame room to me. No thanks to conservatives for their abandonment of a principled stand with families and motherhood.

House Passes Bill Denying Taxpayer Funding for Abortions; Leftists React Predictably

The House of Representatives have passed H.R. 7, the bill that bans taxpayer funding for abortions, by a vote of 238-183, which fell almost completely on party lines.

Specifically, the bill prohibits federal funding and facilities to be used to perform abortions and prohibits tax credits and subsidies for abortion under Obamacare. A similar measure passed last year, but President Obama vetoed it.

Naturally, the Left is apoplectic over the bill’s passage. Over at Cosmopolitan, Hannah Smothers cites a pro-abortion leader who just can’t seem to understand how, in the wake of last Saturday’s Women’s March, the House seeks to protect the unborn:

Many Democrats who stood to debate against the passage of H.R. 7 cited the Women’s March as proof that women in the country demand access to reproductive health care.

“It’s particularly shameful that politicians in Congress are voting to restrict a woman’s ability to get basic health care services just three days after millions of women, men, and families mobilized and marched for their rights,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement released Tuesday.

Smothers also claims that low-income women will die by the thousands in botched back-alley abortions because Congress doesn’t want taxpayer money to go toward abortions.

Cate Carrejo at Bustle wants to make clear that millennials will be hurt most by not being allowed to end a pregnancy at taxpayer expense (because, you know, millennials are the only ones who count):

Losing insurance coverage for abortion is an especially scary thought for millennials, the generation most likely to experience unintended pregnancy right now. While most have health insurance, either through the ACA or their job, many are also strapped for cash. Having to pay out of pocket for an abortion, which can cost up to $1500 in the first trimester, could cause devastating financial repercussions and leave them without a safety net for other emergencies. This inability to cover legitimate healthcare needs could leave millions of young women in danger and without a safe and feasible alternative.

Oh, and H.R. 7 makes Carrejo sad and scared too:

This new bill is probably just the first in a series of heartbreaking setbacks for reproductive rights coming over the next few years. It’s difficult to think about how to fight back when the fear of not being able to access healthcare if you need it keeps closing in, but the generations of women coming after this need help.

And Laura Hankin at Romper is all up in arms about the ripple effect that she claims H.R. 7 is likely to have on private insurance plans as well:

Furthermore, under H.R. 7, women who obtain private insurance plans through, say, the Affordable Care Act’s state exchanges wouldn’t be able to get government subsidies for plans that cover abortion, meaning that those plans would be much less affordable, meaning that people would be less likely to choose them, meaning that insurance companies would likely stop offering them, meaning that H.R. 7 could effectively stop private insurance on those exchanges from covering abortions too.

Hankin just can’t seem to understand why the Women’s March didn’t resonate with Congress:

It’s a clear signal from many Republicans in government that they intend to disregard the protest of millions of women across the country, who just days ago came together to rally for women’s rights, including reproductive choice.

It’s funny how a movement predicated on “choice” gets so worried and worked up over women having to take responsibility for their choice without getting taxpayer money involved. It’s just another sign that the Left is in retreat in today’s America.

Worst Idea Ever

Last night news broke that the Freedom Caucus (the conservatives in the House) had a “secret meeting” to discuss how they could trade their votes for Paul Ryan for Speaker for a low level leadership position.

This is, literally, the worst idea ever. They have now broadcasted to GOP leadership that they are willing to sell their political birthright for something less than a bowl of stew.

With 40-ish Members in the Freedom Caucus, they have the ability to hold GOP leadership’s feet to the fire when things like immigration “reform” and other big government bills are before the House. They have the ability to keep Paul Ryan accountable to a conservative agenda, not a Republican one or one that Paul Singer’s group hopes to advance (see immigration “reform” and marriage and other neocon, New York values type issues).

Some are thinking, “But, wait, they get a leadership slot in the deal!”

A low level, soon to be watered down, doesn’t matter leadership slot.

This is the group that was behind the motion to vacate the chair that forced John Boehner out.

They are now vacating their ability to do that in the next Congress. They should not.

They should be putting together an aggressive, free market/individual liberty/opportunity agenda that they can tell the American people about (and win their hearts and minds) and one they can forcefully negotiate with at the table with the GOP leadership.

Next step? Roll up the sleeves and get ready to rumble.

 

To The Electoral College: You Cannot Elect Hillary Clinton

America finds itself in a bind. We’ve managed to elevate two people as the standard-bearers of our major political parties, neither of whom is fit to serve as president. One is a misogynist vulgarian consumed with his own self-interest, and the other is under active FBI investigation for felonies which would have landed any other person in federal prison.

The director of the FBI admitted Hillary Clinton’s guilt publicly before the nation in July. He testified before Congress that she committed criminal acts in the way she mishandled highly classified information. She then made a series of public claims about her private email server, all of which were refuted by the FBI, as Director James Comey was forced to admit under oath before Congress.

The reason given for the Department of Justice not to prefer charges, hire a special prosecutor, or refer the evidence to a grand jury is that no prosecutor would have charged a former secretary of state, or cabinet-level official, for the criminal acts Clinton committed. Essentially, she was declared above the law because one with such a high appointment is presumed to have a mindset of protecting America above their selfish interests.

Everything we’ve learned about Hillary and Bill Clinton argues against that presumption. They used Bill’s prior position as president to create a network of power, wealth and influence worldwide. They used a charity organization and its attendant perks and privileges to pump foreign donors for money in exchange for access to U.S. government officials and favors. They did this for their own personal enrichment and plans to eventually return to power (as in the presidency).

Now the FBI has reopened the investigation due to even more troubling emails–possibly thousands of them–gleaned while investigating the disgraced husband–a former congressman–of Clinton’s top aide in both her capacity as secretary of state and at the Clinton Foundation.

Obviously something is seriously amiss.

How could the United States of America, the world’s model for peaceful, democratic and lawful transfer of power, put someone like Hillary Clinton into office? This isn’t Panama, or the Philippines, or Uganda, or Albania, or Ukraine. No offense to any of those countries, but they don’t have permanent seats on the UN Security Council. This isn’t Israel, who has jailed its former prime minister Ehud Olmert. And this isn’t China or Russia, who sit on the opposite spectrum of all that America stands for.

If America succumbs to despotism by electing Clinton and inaugurating her as president, then the oath of office loses all meaning. As bad as Donald Trump is, he can at least take the oath of office with a cleaner conscience than Clinton. He can at least try to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (although he is manifestly unfit to do it). Clinton cannot, because she represents someone who is above the law, protected from her actions for life as the ancient Roman Dictators were–immune to all challenge in office and pardoned for life afterward.

Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment. Bill Clinton survived impeachment.  Inaugurating Hillary Clinton into office would be akin to Richard Nixon running for president after Gerald Ford pardoned him, and winning while John Mitchell, Jeb Magruder, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean, G. Gordon Liddy, and Charles Colson were still serving their sentences in federal prison.

It would be a travesty of the highest order. It would seriously damage America’s reputation, beyond salvage, forever.

In just 9 days, Americans will vote and decide, state by state, who will win electoral votes in the electoral college. Our founders set up this electoral college system–and spent more time arguing this one single point during the constitutional convention than any other–to prevent a despot from coming to power and destroying our republic.

As electors, I’m writing to you. You might think this is just a titular position, an honorific for which you bear no responsibility. But that’s not true and you know it. The Constitution itself calls for you to perform a very sacred duty to your nation. You cannot allow a person who was under federal investigation for what amounts to betrayal of America’s secrets and is now again under investigation for the same crimes after being given a hall pass in July, to become president.

Donald Trump will likely still lose this election on November 8th, because millions of people have already cast their votes. Because many people feel that there’s no other choice except to elect Clinton–that Trump’s simply too scary and extreme. Because many people think that voting third party is throwing away a vote. Because many who agree with Clinton’s policies are willing to accept the permanent loss of American stature among nations, and our relegation to “just another corrupt country” in the world’s eye to maintain their own lust for social policies that favor their lifestyles.

If Trump loses on November 8th, and Evan McMullin wins at least one state, by the 12th Amendment making him eligible for the presidency if no candidate achieves a straight majority of 270 electoral votes, then your duty must be to throw the election to the House of Representatives.

You owe this duty to Americans who voted before they had a chance to learn the extent of Clinton’s corruption and now can’t change their votes. You owe this duty to the nation as direct representatives of our founders to preserve the republic. Even if Clinton wins more than 270 electoral votes and McMullin wins none, you must throw the vote to the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives is the only democratically qualified body to decide an election between two unfit candidates. They represent the voters of each state, and the caucuses of their respective parties who placed these unacceptable choices before America. At worst, they will deadlock and either Mike Pence or Tim Kaine, as chosen by the Senate, will become Acting President. That option is exponentially better than either of the two at the top of the ticket, both of whom should have stepped down before now.

I know it’s a terrible burden, and it’s easy to just say “the people have spoken” and be done with it, but you know that’s not how the founders wanted this to happen. Why bother even having electors, or a Constitution, if everything has become ceremonial and pro-forma? The job of elector is neither ceremonial nor is it pro-forma. It exists for such a time as this.

We call it a “faithless elector” when an elector chooses to vote differently than the popular vote of their state. But in this case, it’s a faithless elector who abrogates the Constitutional duty to preserve the United States in favor of a party or person who wants to rule above the law. It’s a dereliction of duty to simply blame the voters, or claim the system is rigged, or give in to corruption.

The only solution is to keep both candidates under 270 electoral votes and let the House of Representatives decide. It will be on their heads if we put a potential felon in the Oval Office, who would enter the presidency with actual crimes on her rap sheet, and a history of betraying our secrets to potential enemies. A person who would not be eligible for even the lowest security clearance were she not elected or politically appointed to a position requiring it.

You cannot elect Hillary Clinton president.