Much of America breathed a sigh of relief last January 20 when Barack Obama boarded Executive One and took off for his final aerial tour of the nation’s capital having been succeeded as president moments earlier by Electoral College winner Donald Trump.



The inauguration day crowd cheered and jeered as the helicopter flew overhead knowing it was a final official goodbye for the man who tainted America so drastically over the course of his eight contentious years in office.



Many of the Trump-supporting onlookers also realized Obama and the former first lady unfortunately weren’t leaving permanently, merely relocating their residence a few short blocks away from the White House. The “retired” first couple explained they needed to stay in the Washington area a little longer while their youngest daughter finished up her schooling days at a nearby expensive and elite private school.



But the real motivation for the Obamas’ remaining behind was to finish their mission to inalterably transform America. Only they no longer would be overtly directing the destruction from behind the soundproof doors of the Oval Office. They’d now be performing the operations under the guise of shelter groups like the one headed by former Attorney General Eric Holder, organizations whose intent was to cause internal disruptions that would shed doubt not only on President Trump’s election, but also on the legitimacy of the entire political system.



These leftist shadow consortiums were created to file lawsuits and conduct public relations campaigns to discredit anything associated with the traditional American beliefs of those who revere the Constitution and America’s time-tested institutions.



One such legal suit was argued last week when the Supreme Court heard the gerrymandering case of Gill v. Whitford, a complaint designed to win through the judicial system what the Democrats couldn’t secure at the ballot box over the past ten years.



Of course the leftist movers argued the Republicans’ actions drove them to it.



Obama buddy Eric Holder wrote last week in the Washington Post, “The National Democratic Redistricting Committee that I chair was created to oppose unfair Republican redistricting tactics and to ensure that voters will be able to choose their representatives rather than politicians choosing their voters. If we are successful before and after the 2020 Census and during the next redistricting cycle, elections will be decided on the basis of political philosophies and platforms — not the ability to draw maps.



“If there are legal cases to be made, we will file lawsuits. But we will also focus our efforts on the more than three-dozen gubernatorial elections and hundreds of legislative races that will determine whether Republican politicians will be able to rig the maps again, following the Census in 2020. And we will support ballot initiatives in states that reform the redistricting process to create mechanisms that ensure fairly drawn voting districts.”



Sounds great, doesn’t it? What a solid sounding effort from a bunch of upstart Americans bent on making sure the concept of one person, one vote does not perish from the earth. As everyone knows Holder is also heavily engaged in efforts to shoot down any type of voter-ID laws that require people to prove they’re actually legal citizens before they gain access to the voting booth.



What Holder’s screed neglected to mention is these alliances are extremely well funded by wealthy leftist collaborators like George Soros. Hidden by a willingly blind and complicit media these groups pay for the professional protesting black hooded thugs and Antifa anarchists to block free speech on college campuses and cause riots like the one in Charlottesville in August (of course the brainless Nazi losers are equally to blame in that particular instance).



It’s funny how Holder -- and through extension, Obama -- couch their massive electoral losses in recent times as stemming from evil and sinister Republicans in the states who rigged the system through voter suppression and gerrymandering to ensure Americans were not represented fairly.



What they’re unwilling to do is look at themselves and the conditions they’ve fashioned to turn virtually the entire nation into a sea of red except for the coasts and inland islands of blue with dense urban populations of Democrat voters. How exactly the Democrats propose to solve this geography problem isn’t clear but the minority party is at least equally to blame for the gerrymandering issue nonetheless.



Philip H. DeVoe wrote in National Review, “Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of gerrymandering is that by this measure, the widely accepted one, Democrats are probably more at fault than Republicans in the war they say they’re trying to win. Simply put, Democrats stand to gain far more from redrawing districts on weirdly shaped political lines than Republicans do.



“Geography factors a great deal into why one party tends to win more congressional elections; … Democratic voters are packed densely into large cities, while Republicans are spread throughout the country more evenly. This ‘unintentional gerrymandering’ leads to a national average bias of five points nationwide for the GOP. So while Gill may make politically motivated redistricting seem like a Republican problem, some of the most dramatic gerrymanders are actually the fault of Democrats, attempting to maximize their power in heavily blue states or hold on to seats when they swing toward the right.”



Be careful what you wish for, Democrats. If the Court accepts that districts should be redrawn according to theories like the “efficiency gap” (in other words, how many votes are “wasted” in electing lawmakers in safe partisan districts) the entire concept of gerrymandering might be reexamined and Democrats – who were in power for most of the 20th century and are responsible for a good many of the absurd maps – will turn out to be the losers.



What it all boils down to is Democrats appear to favor a proportional representation system where their organization and heavy dependence on inner city residents (who approve of big government programs) would provide them with greater power in state legislatures and the House of Representatives.



There’s only one problem: the Constitution doesn’t contemplate proportional representation.



Many democratic countries (most of Europe) throughout the world use proportional representation to determine the partisan makeup of their ruling bodies but the U.S. Constitution leaves the matter up to the individual states to draw their own electoral districts. States alone cannot change this – it’s in the Constitution.



Further, the Constitution was devised in an environment where no one was a member of an organized political party (at the time) and though there likely were “factions” who believed different things (such as the federalists and anti-federalists), you couldn’t look across the room and instantly spot someone who agreed with your point-of-view on a certain subject.



It’s a well-known fact many of the Founding Fathers – most notably George Washington – abhorred the whole concept of parties, believing that once formed they would eventually lead to a dysfunctional system where elected representatives cared more about winning for their own faction and pleasing special interests than they would in weighing each individual issue independently and voting for what’s best for the country.



With well over two hundred years of experience since the Constitution’s ratification the party issue has been indelibly settled; we aren’t going back to the days when there weren’t any interest groups though some states, like Nebraska, have made strides to keep themselves separate from partisan identities.



But just because parties have been sown into the American political fabric doesn’t mean the federal courts are going to throw out established tradition in favor of some trumped-up “efficiency gap” theory.



Democrats can complain all they want about the sorry state of their representation levels in Congress and in a growing number of states but until they actually start championing issues that people outside of the cities care about, they’ll remain in the electoral minority regardless.



Besides, Democrats are losing big in statewide elections that have nothing to do with gerrymandering, too.



Pollster and pundit Jeff Greenfield wrote at Politico Magazine, “[I]f Democrats think this is the key to their political woes, they are kidding themselves. What ails the party—at every level—goes far beyond alleged Republican skulduggery. And a diagnosis of those ills requires an understanding of what the past decade has wrought…



“What do governorships and Senate seats have in common? They cannot be gerrymandered. What has happened, rather, is that the Democratic Party has lost touch not just with the white working class, of which we’ve heard so much this past year, but with a much broader segment of American voters. When a party loses a statewide election, it’s not because their opponents have cleverly divided their voters into a district or two, or because their voters are ‘clustered’ in a city or two; it’s the product of a larger political failure.”



Therein lays the crux of the problem. It should not be forgotten that the Democrats’ woes at the state level began well before the current crop of districts were drawn up after the 2010 census. Republicans’ upward tilt began about the same time the GOP took over Congress after the wave election of 1994.



Wave elections since then have developed largely because of opposition to Democrat policies – or, as was the case in 2006 and 2008, antagonism to the Republican establishment. George W. Bush’s declining approval ratings in his second term were due to his own voter base’s almost complete loss of confidence in him, not because Democrats were proposing anything earth-shattering and welcome.



Obama’s own “hope and change” campaign carried the day because he was up against the Bush legacy of big government failure and the GOP ruling class embodied in the person of John McCain.



In the end, gerrymandering is just the latest convenient excuse Democrats use to make it seem like the system itself is biased against them. Democrats’ attempt to federalize everything won’t change the fact the party is dying at the local level. No Supreme Court ruling is going to fix it.