The Plot Thickens

Yesterday The Daily Caller reported that three brothers who handled computer issues for some Congress members and for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been relieved of their duties.

The article reports:

Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.

Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.

Also among those whose computer systems may have been compromised is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat who was previously the target of a disastrous email hack when she served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign.

The investigation of these men has been going on since late 2016.

The article states:

Signs of trouble have long been visible in public records. The Congressional Credit Union repossessed Abid’s car in 2009, and he declared bankruptcy in 2012, facing multiple lawsuits.

Alvi, who did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment, has taken multiple second mortgages.

Security-sensitive jobs typically require background checks for credit and legal problems that can create pressures to cash in on access to secret information and documents.

Jamal, who public records suggest is only 22 years old and first began working in the House when he was 20, was paid nearly $160,000 a year, or three times the average House IT staff salary, according to InsideGov, which tracks congressional salaries. Abid was paid $161,000 and Imran $165,000.

You would think someone might have noticed before last year. It will be interesting to see how much of the media report this story and how they spin it.

 

Developing A Backbone

Yahoo News is reporting today that Senate Republicans used a parliamentary tactic to change the rules of the Senate Finance Committee, allowing allowed them to pass the nominations on to the full Senate without Democrats in attendance. The Democrats had boycotted the Committee meetings so that the nominees for President Trump’s Cabinet could not be approved and sent out of committee. It was a childish move by people who are still sulking over the fact that they lost an election they did not plan to lose.

In a story posted on January 9 of this year, Fox News reminds us:

Eight years ago, the Senate confirmed seven Cabinet-level nominees the day of Obama’s inauguration, including top picks like Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security secretary. Hillary Clinton was confirmed as secretary of state the following day.

I will admit that I was not a fan of any of President Obama‘s Cabinet picks, but elections have consequences, and a President should be allowed to have the Cabinet of his choice. Evidently Democrats do not feel that way.

The article at The New York Post lists the problems the Democrats cited with the two candidates in the committee, but the Democrats fail to mention that similar problems were overlooked in the past.

The article reports:

Price had numerous investments in healthcare-related stocks while drafting legislation with the potential to influence the healthcare sector. Additionally, an investment in an Australian pharmaceutical company was called into question as a possible violation of the Stock Act, which governs investments from congressional members.

Price told the committee that the investment into the Australian company, Innate Immunotherapeutics, was available to all investors. A report from The Wall Street Journal, however, found that his investment was through a private offering in the US available to fewer than 20 Americans. It was available to all investors in Australian and New Zealand.

Mnuchin was attacked for failing to disclose nearly $100 million in assets — mostly real-estate holdings — and directorships at offshore entities related to his hedge fund, Dune Capital Management. Additionally, Democrats called out foreclosure activities by OneWest Bank, a mortgage lender owned by a group led by Mnuchin.

Mnuchin said during testimony that OneWest had not used so-called robosigning for foreclosure documents, but an investigation by the Columbus Dispatch showed that such automation was used for at least some loans in Ohio.

Hatch (Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the chair of the committee), on the other hand, said that these were simply distractions used by Democrats to block two qualified nominees and the delay tactics forced the Republican controlled committee’s hand.

Hatch also pointed to the Finance committee’s approval of Timothy Geithner for Treasury secretary in 2009, at which point he had an outstanding tax bill of around $40,000, as an example of Republicans being willing to compromise on appointments. Geithner passed with a 18 to 5 vote.

This kind of shenanigans on the part of the Democrats is exactly why Donald Trump won the election. Politicians are getting old, boring, and ridiculous. The political posturing has become so over the top that nothing can be accomplished for the good of the American people. Donald Trump was elected to put an end to that sort of foolishness.

Hopefully these nominees can be quickly confirmed in the Senate.

 

Looking For The Truth

The Gateway Pundit reported yesterday that the House Oversight Committee has sent a request to FBI Director James Comey for Datto Company’s secure cloud storage, Datto Company holds Hillary Clinton’s server contents.

This is a copy of the letter:

The real problem here is the lack of security on Hillary Clinton’s private server.

The article at The Gateway Pundit quotes an article from the U.K. Daily Mail from June 2016:

A Daily Mail Online investigation has found that a second firm – hired to store a back-up of Clinton’s secret server – was so lax in its security employees failed to change passwords frequently and left computers logged in, unattended for extended periods and its own clients stumbled upon other clients data.

Datto Inc, the company in question, was hired to store Hilary’s emails by Platte River, the mom-and-pop company contracted to maintain her ‘homebrew’ email system.

Speaking exclusively to Daily Mail Online on condition of anonymity, one former employee at Datto, said the company was woefully exposed to being hacked.

‘If you’re talking about high-level data security, at the political, presidential level, the security level of data [at Datto] hired by Platte River, was nowhere near something that could have been protected from a good hacker that knows how to spread out their points at which to infiltrate,’ he said.

Mishandling secret information is a serious offense. I don’t want to see Hillary Clinton go to jail (although anyone else would be in jail by now), but I do want some acknowledgement of the fact that she committed serious crimes in the area of failing to protect classified information.

The Explanation You Might Not Have Heard

Hot Air posted an article today about the resignations and firings at the State Department. The article explains that State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy had planned to stay on during the Trump Administration, but then suddenly resigned. So what happened?

Rex Tillerson visited the State Department on Wednesday and met with the people there. The Washington Post reported that the Trump Administration was looking to replace the State Department’s undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Then suddenly Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned.

The article at Hot Air sheds light on a possible explanation:

Patrick Kennedy was the person working behind the scenes to downgrade classified emails found on Hillary Clinton’s private server. When the first SECRET email turned up on Clinton’s server, Kennedy intervened three different times to ask the FBI to change its mind about the classification.

As it turned out, Kennedy’s attempt to fix the problem for Hillary didn’t matter. There were 110 email chains on her server that were classified (at the time they were sent not upgraded as the State Department repeatedly claimed) so reclassifying one email would not have helped much.

In addition to his role as fixer for Clinton at the State Department, Kennedy was ultimately responsible for decisions regarding security at the Benghazi consulate. The review board did not find Kennedy responsible for the decision to cut security, but chargé d’affaires Gregory Hicks testified he believed Kennedy should have been held at least partly responsible.

The article quotes a Politico report stating that Patrick Kennedy disputed the classification of some of Hillary Clinton’s emails at least three times.

The above may explain the sudden resignation of Patrick Kennedy. Actions have consequences, and he is one example of the swamp that needs to be drained. The State Department is not supposed to be political,. Obviously it was. It would be healthy for the country to see that change.

How Can We Miss You When You Won’t Go Away?

President Obama seems to be reluctant to leave the stage. We haven’t seen this amount of trying to hog the spotlight since the Clintons. It really is getting pathetic. There is a tradition that the outgoing President would go quietly into the private sector and let the new President do his job. That is not a guarantee in the present situation.

The U.K Daily Mail posted a story yesterday about some recent comments by President Obama.

The article reports:

President Obama issued a farewell warning to President-elect Donald Trump, saying he would jump off the political sidelines if Trump goes against certain ‘core values.’ 

At his last scheduled news conference before leaving office on Friday, Obama said if there was ‘systemic discrimination,’ efforts to ‘silence dissent’ or to ‘roll back voting rights,’ he would be ‘speaking out.’

It was among his most activist descriptions of his next act, and indicates Obama may be rethinking his post-presidency role and heeding the urging of some activists to play a stronger function in the leaderless Democratic Party as it navigates the Trump administration.

That group of issues, Obama explained, were ‘core values that may be at stake’ and would prompt him to get off the sidelines.

Would someone please remind President Obama that he campaigned for Hillary Clinton and said that his policies were on the ballot. With the exception of New York, California, and a few other liberal states, those policies were rejected. He will be an ex-President and deserves a certain amount of respect as an ex-President. However, he has no legal role to play in the upcoming administration.

There is a problem with President Obama’s intentions. If the press continues to support him, he will be an obstacle to forward progress in America. He is leaving a mess for President Trump–both nationally and internationally. If President Obama is seen (the press won’t report this, but people are waking up) as an obstacle to progress, the Democratic Party can count on further losses in Congress, state governments and local governments. At some point even the Democrats are going to realize that President Obama has been a liability for the Democratic Party–not an asset.

Don’t Get Lost In The False Narrative

As I sit here writing this post, I am listening to the news. The news is telling me that a number of Democrats will not attend the inauguration of President Trump because they feel that he is an illegitimate President. Hopefully most Americans realize how ridiculous this charge is. However, there is a full-blown effort by the media and the political left to undermine Donald Trump before he is even sworn in as President.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review yesterday detailing one aspect of the attack on soon-to-be President Trump. The article deals with the strategy behind the Justice Department Inspector General’s review of some aspects of the Justice Department’s handing of the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Mr. McCarthy explains how the parameters of this investigation will make sure the investigation determines exactly what the political left wants the investigation to determine. It is important to note that the investigation will not look into the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Arizona during the Justice Department investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server. They will not look into immunity granted to witnesses and evidence destroyed during the original investigation. They will not look at ways in which Mrs. Clinton‘s private server compromised national security. So what is going on here?

The article explains:

The aim is obvious: If Comey’s statements were against protocol, then they will be portrayed as violations that caused Clinton to lose — the argument will be that Trump’s victory was as razor thin as it gets, Clinton decisively won the popular vote, so surely Comey’s impropriety is what swung the few thousand votes Clinton would have needed in key states to win in the Electoral College. Therefore, the narrative goes: Trump’s victory, and thus his presidency, is illegitimate.

…The Democrats erase your first argument by reducing the whole election down to the e-mails investigation, such that Mrs. Clinton’s many other flaws as a candidate do not matter. The Democrats erase your second argument by making sure the IG investigation focuses on James Comey, not on Hillary Clinton’s crimes and the Justice Department’s outrageous machinations to make sure she was not prosecuted for those crimes.
There you have it. The public’s perception of Trump’s legitimacy may hinge on the public’s understanding of the Justice Department inspector-general’s probe. The Democrats fully grasp this and are lining things up so that they’ll win before Republicans even realize the game is on.

I hope most Americans will see through this dog and pony show. It is really sad that the political left is doing everything it can to damage the Presidency of Donald Trump even before he is sworn in. If Donald Trump is such a horrible person with such bad ideas, why not just sit back and wait for him to fail? It is disheartening to hear politicians on the left repeating charges that have no proof behind them as if they were fact. Unfortunately I think this is going to get worse. The only cure for the lying media is for Americans to stop listening to the mainstream media and their lies. Maybe at that point, the mainstream media will realize that it is in their best interests (and the interests of America) to report the truth.

Honesty In The Mainstream Media Seems To Be A Lost Art

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about Major General Errol Schwartz, the head of the Washington, D.C. National Guard.

The article cites a Washington Post story about General Schwartz’s resignation.

The Washington Post story on the resignation reports:

“The Army general who heads the D.C. National Guard and has an integral part in overseeing the inauguration said Friday that he will be removed from command effective at 12:01 p.m. Jan. 20, just as Donald Trump is sworn in as president.

Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz’s departure will come in the middle of the presidential ceremony — classified as a national special security event — and while thousands of his troops are deployed to help protect the nation’s capital during an inauguration he has spent months helping to plan.

“The timing is extremely unusual,” Schwartz said in an interview Friday morning, confirming a memo announcing his ouster that was obtained by The Washington Post. During the inauguration, Schwartz will command not only members of the D.C. Guard but also 5,000 unarmed troops dispatched from across the country to help. He also will oversee military air support protecting Washington during the inauguration.

“My troops will be on the street,” said Schwartz, who turned 65 in October. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He said he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”

However, that’s not actually what is going on.

The Washington Post has changed its story.

The Gateway Pundit reports:

Now This…
The Trump administration told FOX News of Friday the story is a crock.

Schwartz was offered to stay on his post until after the Inauguration but decided to quit during the ceremony and then he ran to the press to complain.

According to FOX News,

“The Trump Transition team reportedly offered to let him keep his job until the ceremonies were over. Maj. Gen Schwartz refused. It appears he would rather argue his would rather argue his case though in the press.”

The article at The Gateway Pundit also mentions:

The Washington Post completely rewrote their story since it was originally posted without any mention of an update.

We need to be aware of what is happening here. The mainstream media remembers the time when they were able to bring down a sitting President (Richard Nixon) by constantly tearing him down. When you go back and read some of this history of Watergate, you discover that it was a case that should have been over in two months, but behind the scenes in Congress many former members of Bobby Kennedy’s Justice Department were engaged in a strategy to delay indictments and prolong hearings in order to bring down the President and the Republican party. Their long-term goal was to prepare the way for Ted Kennedy to become President. What we are seeing now in the mainstream media today is simply another example of the press trying to create opinions rather than to report news..

We are undergoing a peaceful transition of power. It would be wonderful if those who supported Hillary Clinton during the election would remember that Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton lost. This is the time for working together for America. This is not the time for unending attacks on the new President.

 

 

It Is Important To Know Where The Money Is Coming From

The Daily Caller posted a story today about the 2017 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report. The report labels the U.S. as a major human rights abuser. Wow! Who knew? That sounds really alarming until you look at the money behind Human Rights Watch.

The article reports:

The 687-page report provides overviews of human rights situations in approximately 90 countries around the world. It rates countries based upon their treatment of  journalists and dissenters, the freedom of their elections, and their positions on the death penalty, the use of torture and the fairness of their judicial systems.

Though Trump has yet to shape any policies in the U.S., the HRW survey mentions the Republican 19 times, including under a section with the heading “Trump’s Dangerous Rhetoric.”

The group is most disturbed with Trump’s comments regarding immigration and Muslims.

The 19 mentions of Trump is compared to 11 mentions of both Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, both of whom have cracked down heavily on reporters and dissidents. Bashar al-Assad, the dictator of Syria who has murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens, receives 15 mentions in the report.

In his introduction to the report, Roth argued that Trump is one of a new class of Western leaders who are riding a wave of anti-globalist, nationalistic populism.

So let’s look at the money behind the group:

HRW is heavily funded by Soros, a Hillary Clinton supporter who backs hundreds of leftist and progressive groups across the world. Soros pledged to give $100 million to HRW over a ten year period in 2010. Open Society Foundations, Soros’ main vehicle for funding U.S.-based groups, gave $10 million to HRW in 2014, its most recent tax filings show.

President-elect Trump hasn’t done anything yet, and this group is already accusing him of human rights violations. Nothing like getting ahead of the curve. So what is really going on here? George Soros is a globalist who supports one-world government (which he, of course, would help control). Nationalism is a threat to those who want one-world government, as is patriotism. The globalists have had a bad spell lately–they thought Britain would stay in the EU and they thought Hillary would win the election. Now they are desperate to regain some sort of relevancy in countries that are actually free and value freedom.

We can expect more of this behavior in the future from people who believe that everyone around the world should live in a third-world country and that George Soros and his friends should be in charge and live very, very well.

Sometimes I Simply Lack Sympathy

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that George Soros lost $1 billion after the 2016 election.

The article reports:

“Mr. Soros was cautious about the market going into November and became more bearish immediately after Mr. Trump’s election, according to people close to the matter,” according to the Wall Street Journal report. After the rally, Soros dropped many of his losing positions but not before incurring substantial losses.

The billionaire likely will be able to absorb the hit. His namesake firm, Soros Management Fund LLC, has a reported $30 billion in assets.

Soros, an 86-year-old native of Hungary, is a prominent supporter of liberal causes and groups. He was instrumental in founding such groups as the Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America. He poured $19 million into the 2016 election on behalf of Democrats, including presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Mr. Soros has been meddling in American politics for some time. It was revealed last summer that many of the people arrested in various protests supporting left-wing causes were being paid through Soros’ organizations. Frankly I am glad that he will have a little less money to try to influence our elections. He is not a friend of our republic.

The Past Eight Years

Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe posted an article today evaluating the eight years of the Presidency of Barack Obama. President Obama is planning to give his farewell address in Chicago on Tuesday. The purpose of the address is to“celebrate the ways you’ve changed this country for the better these past eight years.” Wow.

The article takes a look at the past eight years to see if there is anything worth celebrating. Here are a few of the highlights:

In 2010, two years after electing him president, voters trounced Obama’s party, handing Democrats the biggest midterm losses in 72 years. Obama was reelected in 2012, but by nearly 4 million fewer votes than in his first election, making him the only president ever to win a second term with shrunken margins in both the popular and electoral vote.

The trend continued, he campaigned for Hillary Clinton in 2016, saying that a vote for Hillary would be a vote to support his policies during the past eight years. Hillary lost.

The article notes the economy during President Obama’s time in office:

The economy. Obama took office during a painful recession and (with Congress’s help) made it even worse. Historically, the deeper a recession, the more robust the recovery that follows, but the economy’s rebound under Obama was the worst in seven decades. Annual GDP growth since the recession ended has averaged a feeble 2.1 percent, by far the puniest economic performance of any president since World War II.

…In 2008, when Obama was first elected president, 63 percent of Americans considered themselves middle class. Seven years later, only 51 percent still felt the same way.

The article talks about President Obama’s impact on healthcare:

But Obamacare has been a fiasco. At least 27 million Americans are still without health insurance, and many of those who are newly insured have simply been added to the Medicaid rolls. Far from reducing costs, Obamacare sent premiums and deductibles skyrocketing. Insurance companies, having suffered billions of dollars in losses on the Obamacare exchanges, have pulled out from many of them, leaving consumers in much of the country with few or no options. And the administration, it transpired, knew all along that millions of Americans would lose their medical plans once the law took effect. The deception was so egregious that in December 2013, PolitiFact dubbed “If you like your health plan, you can keep it” as its “Lie of the Year.”

President Obama has not been successful in the area of foreign policy. The world is less safe now than it was when he took office. Part of the problem is the premature troop withdrawal from Iraq, which paved the way for ISIS. This is not totally President Obama’s fault–America has politicized wars since the Korean War. We have forgotten how to win them, and thus have wasted more lives because we were not willing to fight hard. War is ugly, nasty, and horrible, but there would be less of it if it were fought quickly and ended quickly. Somehow since the Korean War, politics have determined battle strategy, and that is a recipe for disaster. President Obama has to take some responsibility for politicizing the war in Iraq (along with his Democratic Party allies), but the precedent for their behavior was set many years ago.

The most disturbing area of failure that the article brings up is the area of national unity. The article states:

According to Gallup, Obama became the most polarizing president in modern history. Like all presidents, he faced partisan opposition, but Obama worsened things by regularly taking the low road and disparaging his critics’ motives. In his own words, his political strategy was one of ruthless escalation: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” During his 2012 reelection campaign, Politico reported that “Obama and his top campaign aides have engaged far more frequently in character attacks and personal insults than the Romney campaign.” And when a Republican-led Congress wouldn’t enact legislation he sought, Obama turned to his “pen and phone” strategy of governing by diktat that polarized politics even more.

The article concludes:

Obama’s accession in 2008 as the nation’s first elected black president was an achievement that even Republicans and conservatives could cheer. It marked a moment of hope and transformation; it genuinely did change America for the better.

It was also the high point of Obama’s presidency. What followed, alas, was eight long years of disenchantment and incompetence. Our world today is more dangerous, our country more divided, our national mood more toxic. In a few days, Donald Trump will become the 45th president of the United States. Behold the legacy of the 44th.

We need to remember that the U.S. Constitution was put in place to limit government–not to limit American citizens. Hopefully Donald Trump is aware of that history and will act accordingly.

I Need A Technical Person To Explain This To Me

Twitchy reported yesterday that the FBI never examined to Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers in its investigation of the claim that Russia was behind the email leaks. Huh? Then how do they know who hacked into the computers if they never examined them?

The article includes the following:

The “he said, she said” allegations being exchanged by the FBI and the Democratic National Committee continued Thursday, with the FBI insisting that the DNC would not allow direct access to its hacked servers, leaving the FBI to rely on a forensic analysis performed by a third party.

Next we will probably find out that the third party is a relative of some high ranking official of the DNC. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

The article continues:

DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told BuzzFeed in an email that the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers. Instead, the FBI relied on an analysis done by security firm CrowdStrike, which investigated the breach for the DNC.

NBC’s intelligence and national security reporter added this information to the mix.

This was also included in the article:

Why are we still hearing about this? Because the longer it stays in the news, the better chance it has of undermining Donald Trump’s Presidency. It doesn’t matter how many times the statement is made that the hacking did not impact the election, the media wants to keep the story alive. Also, if the focus is on the hacking, it is not on the content of the leaked emails. Remember, the leaked emails showed a rigged Democratic primary and a media that was coordinating with the Democratic party. Those are the two things we need to remember about the hacking of the DNC computers.

However, I do need a computer person to tell me how you can investigate a hacking without access to the hacked computers.

In The End, Our Votes Do Count

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about some of the things President Obama has done in the final days of his administration. His actions have not been respectful of either the American voters or the incoming President. Just for the record, outside of the State of California, Donald Trump won 58,474,401 votes and Hillary Clinton won 57,064,530 votes–a victory margin of approximately 1.4 million for Donald Trump. I won’t even speculate on how many non-citizens voted in California.

If you remember, back in 2008, after the votes were tallied, but before the electoral college had met, Barack Obama created the office of the President-elect. There was no such office, and until the Electoral College voted in December, he wasn’t even officially the President-elect. However, President George W. Bush did everything he could to insure a smooth transition. Unfortunately, President Obama has chosen to ignore the good example that was placed before him.

The New York Post reports:

From his dramatic and disastrous change of US policy on Israel to his executive order restricting 1.65 million acres of land from development despite local objections, Obama is trying to make it impossible for Donald Trump and a GOP-controlled Congress to govern.

Even Thursday’s announcement of wide-ranging sanctions against Russia presents Trump with a foreign-policy crisis immediately upon taking office.

By contrast, many of Obama’s predecessors have stood back in their final days in office and refrained from any dramatic shifts, in deference to the agenda of the man voters sent to succeed them.

But Obama won’t accept the election results. As he suggested the other day, Trump’s election was a fluke — and he himself would have easily been re-elected if allowed to stand for a third term.

He believes this not just because he’s an effective campaigner, but because he thinks his “vision” and policies continue to be backed by “a majority of the American people.”

But Obama, like many Democrats, fails to understand what happened in the election: Voters were calling for real change from the status quo — from his policies. Indeed, before the vote, he himself said it was a referendum on him and his policies.

Memo to the president: You lost.

President Obama has stated that if he were able to run for a third term as President, he would have won. To believe that is to ignore the fact that during the Obama Administration the Democrats have lost a tremendous number of governorships, state legislatures, and majorities in Congress.

On Tuesday, Fox News reported the following:

While Obama’s tireless campaigning, broad demographic appeal and message of “hope” and “change” helped propel him to two terms in the White House, his skills on the stump haven’t translated down the ballot.

The Democratic Party suffered huge losses at every level during Obama’s West Wing tenure.

The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency. 

The latter was perhaps the most profound example of Obama’s popularity failing to translate to support for his allies. Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state under Obama, brought the first family out for numerous campaign appearances. In September, Obama declared that his “legacy’s on the ballot.”

Less than two months later, Americans voted for Donald Trump.

American voters voted against President Obama’s legacy–now President Obama is trying to tie President-elect Donald Trump’s hands in undoing the parts of that legacy that have been harmful to Americans–the Iran deal, fighting against energy independence, over regulation, extreme environmentalism, treating our allies badly and our enemies well, etc. The voters have spoken. It is time for President Obama to quietly leave the stage.

 

 

 

 

A New Degree Of Pettiness

Reuters is reporting today that the U.S. Government has ordered 35 Russian suspected spies to leave America and imposed sanctions on two Russian intelligence agencies over their involvement in hacking U.S. political groups in the 2016 presidential election. First of all, the people who leaked the emails have repeatedly stated that Russia had nothing to do with the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)–those who released the emails have stated that they came from a whistleblower within the DNC who objected to the primary election being rigged to give Hillary Clinton the nomination.

The article at Reuters is a classic example of spin. They go on to say that the Russians were responsible, yet ignore the content of the emails released, which is actually what turned voters off. There is no mention of the fact that no one has ever denied the content of the emails despite the fact that it revealed horrible things about how the DNC operated.  One can’t help but wonder if the sanctions and expulsion of diplomats would be happening if Hillary Clinton had won the election. Would President Obama care?

John Hinderaker posted a more balanced article dealing with the Russian sanctions at Power Line today.

The Power Line article asks an obvious question:

The Obama administration insists that Russia’s government was behind the DNC intrusion, but acknowledges that those who actually carried out the operation were not Russian government employees. Rather, the Fancy Bear group is said to be “affiliated with the GRU.” The administration says it will publish a report before Obama leaves office that will detail the evidence against Vladimir Putin’s administration. Until then, there is no way to evaluate the reliability of the claim that Russia’s government was involved.

But let’s assume it was. This is the question I haven’t seen the press corps ask; needless to say, the administration hasn’t answered it. Why didn’t Obama impose sanctions on Russia in October 2014, when, by the administration’s own account, the Russian government hacked into both the White House’s and the State Department’s computers? This was a much more serious infraction than invading Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s emails. Yet it drew zero response from Obama, who seemed more interested in covering up an embarrassing episode than in punishing the Russians.

Given that history, it is hard to disagree with Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who said:

We think that such steps by a U.S. administration that has three weeks left to work are aimed at two things: to further harm Russian-American ties, which are at a low point as it is, as well as, obviously, to deal a blow to the foreign policy plans of the incoming administration of the president-elect.

I knew President Obama would not go quietly, but I did not expect him to complicate America’s relationships around the world. Russia under Putin will never be trustworthy, but at least there was a possibility of a working relationship under President Trump. President Obama has done what he could to make any cooperation between our two countries very difficult.

 

Creating A Problem Where There Shouldn’t Be One

Townhall.com posted an article yesterday about the plans for an upcoming concert. Somehow politics has crept into all areas of our lives and we are no longer capable of simply enjoying art and entertainment together. This phenomena is not the result of the election of Donald Trump–he hasn’t taken office yet and was only elected a few weeks ago–it is something that has been building in recent years. Somehow, an idea has taken hold in certain areas of our society that people who do not agree with certain voices on the political left must be punished in some way. To call that idea divisive is the understatement of the year.

The Townhall article reports:

While there are few actually confirmed details as of now, there’s apparently a massive, star-studded “We The People” concert being planned for Miami on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration. The idea is to counter Trump’s inauguration and garner higher television ratings than the swearing-in. Normally, the presidential inaugurals carry several a-list acts, but Trump has had issues booking artists to perform. So far, the only confirmed acts are Jackie Evancho (singing the National Anthem), the Rockettes, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

What are the people planning this concert trying to do? To me, this looks like a bunch of spoiled brats throwing a temper tantrum.

The article concludes:

While artists and concert promoters are free to do whatever they’d like, this still strikes me as being rather petty. Donald Trump won the election and he was elected president of the United States. He will continue to be president of the United States even if nobody watches him be sworn in because they’re too distracted by the likes of Madonna and Lady Gaga. A mega-concert cannot change the fact that he won more Electoral College votes than Hillary Clinton did.

As I said, Donald Trump has not taken office yet. Is this an example of the divisiveness and unwillingness to work together that the Obama Administration has left us with?

 

About The Popular Vote vs. The Electoral College Thing

On Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the final numbers from the 2016 Presidential Election.

The article reports some amazing statistics:

If you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state — where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins — Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)

Meanwhile, if you look at every other measure, Trump was the clear and decisive winner in this election.

Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
_________________
Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
_________________
Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
_________________
Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
_________________
Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
_________________
Trump: + 1.4 million

This is a stunning example of the reason our Founding Fathers made the Electoral College part of the U.S. Constitution. Do you really want California determining who will be President?

Maybe The Hysteria Will Stop Now

Yahoo News is reporting today that Donald Trump has officially won the Electoral College vote. If is official–Donald Trump is our President-elect, to be sworn in January 20, 2017.

The article reports:

Washington (AFP) – America’s Electoral College on Monday confirmed Donald Trump’s election as the 45th president of the United States, unswayed by a last-ditch bid by die-hard opponents to bar the Republican’s path to the White House.

Six weeks after his upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Trump sailed as expected past the 270 votes needed to make his victory official, according to US media, clearing the way for him to succeed Barack Obama on January 20.

“Congratulations to @realDonaldTrump; officially elected President of the United States today by the Electoral College!” tweeted Vice President-elect Mike Pence as the results came in.

Under normal circumstances, the Electoral College vote is a little-watched, rubber stamp formality in which electors across the country officially cast votes for the candidate that won the popular tally in their state.

This time, however, Democratic activists casting the Republican as a threat to democracy staged a vocal campaign urging Republican electors to break ranks and refuse to vote for him.

When US voters cast their ballots on November 8, they did not directly elect the next president but rather 538 electors charged with translating their wishes into reality.

After a deeply divisive campaign, Trump won a clear majority of those electors — 306 — although his Democratic rival finished nearly three million votes ahead in the popular tally.

This signifies the end of the process of selecting the next President. Can we all please begin to work together to overcome the obstacles that we face? News reports today are an indication that terrorism is a real threat throughout the world, and we are not immune. The workforce participation rate is the lowest it has been since the 1970’s. Health insurance premiums are skyrocketing. We have real problems that we also have the capability to solve. Let’s solve them together.

 

Checking The Integrity Of Our Elections

Yesterday The Detroit News posted an article about some problems with the Presidential Election in Detroit.

The article reports:

County clerk officials on Thursday released a memo to State Elections Director Chris Thomas that said 95 poll books from the 662 precincts weren’t available at the start of the canvass, which began the day after the Nov. 8 election. Five of those poll books, which contain the names of voters and ensure the integrity of elections, were never delivered to county canvassers and presumably remain missing.

The revelation comes atop other irregularities that have prompted a state audit. Among other issues, The Detroit News reported this week that voting machines registered more votes than they should have in one-third of all city precincts.

“I’m not happy with how Detroit handled this election at all,” said Krista Hartounian, chairwoman of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, which certified the election.

“We had been seeing improvement, but this one was different. This one was off.”

Canvassers compare poll books with printouts from voting machines to ensure the number of people who signed in to vote match the number of ballots cast.

The article goes on to list other irregularities that occurred during the election. Please follow the link above to read the details.

The article continues:

The M100s, which are used in 55 percent of Michigan’s precincts, have a spotty reputation. In 2008, then-Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson, who is now secretary of state, urged federal officials to investigate after the optical scanners improperly counted 8 percent of ballots during testing.

“The same ballots, run through the same machines, yielded different results each time,” Johnson wrote to the Election Assistance Commission, an agency that administers federal payments to states to buy voting machines.

Johnson wrote that vendors blamed dust and debris inside the machines. A Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency report noted the machines still run on the Windows XP operating system, which Microsoft has not sold since 2008 and for which it stopped providing support and security updates in 2014.

I don’t know how much of this voter ID would cure, but it might be a step in the right direction.

Why Americans Don’t Trust The Media

This showed up on my Twitter feed this morning:

Julian Assange has flatly stated that Russia was not his source, but that has not stopped CNN from reporting that Russia was his source. (To read the entire story on Julian Assange’s comments, you have to go to the British newspapers.) This is totally aggravating. Has it occurred to anyone that people inside the Democratic Party or people inside the national intelligence community might have been concerned about the way Hillary Clinton handled classified information? Having your maid collect classified documents off of your printer is a violation of common sense as well as a violation of pretty much any law regarding the handling of classified information. This might have concerned some of the patriotic professionals.

This whole kerfuffle is dirty politics at its finest. Hopefully, most Americans recognize it for what it is.

Stay Tuned–This May Get Interesting

The Daily Caller reported yesterday the the FBI has instructed its New York office to continue its investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

The article reports:

“There were no instructions to shut it down, to discontinue or to stand down on the investigation, but to continue its work,” the former official told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.

He said he received this information about a week ago and that the order originated from the bureau’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. well after the November 8 election.  He did not know who at FBI Headquarters issued the order.

…Senior Justice Department officials reportedly were openly skeptical of the Clinton Foundation case and repeatedly tried to shut down the bureau’s probe.  But the department was not able to shut down the FBI activities.

There is probably a serious case here. Looking at the finances of the Clinton Foundation, it becomes obvious that a very small percentage of the money donated iwent toward charitable causes. The administrative expenses of the Foundation account for a large percentage of the money donated. I suspect that there are many legal issues with the foreign money the Foundation has accepted and the decisions made by the State Department involving the donors. However, I don’t want to see Bill or Hillary Clinton go to prison. I suspect that they deserve to be there, but I think sending them there would only serve to divide the country further. Also, neither one of them has aged well, and it would be a nightmare to have an ex-President or ex-First Lady die in prison. At any rate, Americans have a right to know what was compromised because of donations to the Clinton Foundation, and I would be glad to see the investigation into the Foundation continue under a less politicized Justice Department.

Counting The Votes In Michigan

It is somewhat odd that an election candidate that received approximately 1 percent of the vote can demand a recount, but that is exactly what Green Party candidate Jill Stein did.  It’s not likely that the recount will change her status. In Michigan that request was denied, but when the votes were counted, the numbers were interesting.

Breitbart.com posted an article today the vote totals in Detroit.

The article reports:

Voting machines in 37 per cent of Detroit precincts recorded more votes than mathematically possible during November’s presidential election, according to records obtained by The Detroit News.

Reports obtained by the newspaper from Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett found that in 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, more votes had been counted than the number of people who had been marked as having voted, which might serve as evidence of voter fraud across the city.

Following the report, Michigan’s Secretary of State Ruth Johnson announced plans to conduct a full investigation into the irregularities. Detroit was one of the areas in which Hillary Clinton’s support was particularly strong.

The article further reports:

“We’re assuming there were (human) errors, and we will have discussions with Detroit election officials and staff in addition to reviewing the ballots,” said Michigan’s Elections Director Chris Thomas on Monday.

However, Krista Haroutunian, the chairwoman of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, said that although “there’s always going to be small problems to some degree, we didn’t expect the degree of problem we saw in Detroit.”

“This isn’t normal,” she added.

Michigan was one of the last states to be counted, with Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton by 10,704 votes, taking him to his landslide electoral college victory of 306 votes compared to Clinton’s 232. He also became the first Republican to win the state since George W.H Bush in 1998.

There is a real need for a voter ID requirement in American elections, particularly in our large cities. Detroit was not the only city where more people voted than were eligible to vote. In one North Carolina city, it was discovered that 240 people listed a gravel parking lot with a shed as their address. Voter ID would have solved that problem. If Congress is really  concerned about the integrity of elections, they would support stronger voter ID laws in federal elections instead of chasing straw men about leaks that probably came from inside the DNC.

 

Why Voters Don’t Trust The Media

Does anyone really believe that the Russians would have preferred the election of Donald Trump for President over the election of Hillary Clinton?

Let’s look at some of the history between Hillary Clinton and the Russians. in April 2015, Breitbart.com reported that the chairman of the Russian Nuclear Agency-controlled Uranium One funneled $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. This was followed by the Uranium One deal that allowed the Russians to acquire control of one-fifth of America’s uranium. So the mainstream media is trying to tell me that Russia would rather do business with Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton. You can bribe Hillary Clinton. I’m not sure you can bribe Donald Trump.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story today about the news that Russia interfered in the American election. He sums it up very well:

It is certainly the most overblown story in a long time. The casual reader of newspaper headlines might well believe that the Russian government hacked into voting machines, or something of the sort, to influence the presidential election. But that is not the case. If you read the Washington Post story, they are merely talking about the well-known hacks of Democratic National Committee and John Podesta emails. The only news here is that someone at the CIA thinks the Russian government carried out the operation and did so in order to help Donald Trump win the election.

…The Post’s sources are some combination of Democratic senators and Obama administration officials, conveying their impressions of what what unnamed representatives of the CIA told a bipartisan group of senators in a recent briefing. Someday, persuasive evidence supporting the Post’s headline may emerge, but it certainly hasn’t so far.

Another attempt by the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media to delegitimize the election of Donald Trump. I guess the intelligence community is actually part of the swamp that needs to be drained. It really is time for this to stop. Donald Trump was elected. It’s time to move on. Have the Democrats and the media forgotten that we all live in the same country?

It’s Amazing How Things Change

This is a description of a bill passed in 2006. (Information on any Congressional legislation can be found at Thomas.gov).

Thomas.gov reports:

H.R.6061 – Secure Fence Act of 2006    109th Congress (2005-2006)

Shown Here:
Public Law No: 109-367 (10/26/2006)

(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on September 14, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Secure Fence Act of 2006 – Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of enactment of this Act, to take appropriate actions to achieve operational control over U.S. international land and maritime borders, including: (1) systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry and facilitate border access by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.

Defines “operational control” as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

Directs the Secretary to report annually to Congress on border control progress.

Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to direct the Secretary to provide at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending: (1) from ten miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to ten miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; (2) from ten miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to five miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry (requiring installation of an interlocking surveillance camera system by May 30, 2007, and fence completion by May 30, 2008); (3) from five miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to ten miles east of El Paso, Texas; (4) from five miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to five miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and (5) 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry (requiring fence completion from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry by December 31, 2008).

States that if an area has an elevation grade exceeding 10% the Secretary may use other means to secure such area, including surveillance and barrier tools.

Directs the Secretary to: (1) study and report to the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the necessity, feasibility, and economic impact of constructing a state-of-the-art infrastructure security system along the U.S. northern international land and maritime border; and (2) evaluate and report to such Committees on U.S. Customs and Border Protection authority (and possible expansion of authority) to stop fleeing vehicles that enter the United States illegally, including related training, technology, and equipment reviews.

This is the vote in the Senate:

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Note that Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama voted to build the fence. Before the Democrats decided to make the border fence a political issue, they supported a border fence because they understood that it was necessary for national security. Unfortunately some time between 2006 and 2016 the Democrats chose to put party politics above national security. The border fence was never built, but the authorization is still there. It will be interesting to see if President Trump takes advantage of that authorization.

 

Why We Need The Electoral College

Michael Barone posted an article at The Washington Examiner today about the Electoral College. There has been a lot of discussion about the Electoral College lately because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 Presidential election, but Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote and the election. So how does this work and why do we need it?

First of all, the Founding Fathers put the Electoral College in place to protect the rights of the smaller states.

According to the government website archives.gov, this is how the Electoral College works:

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.

Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.

Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.

The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.

The article at The Washington Examiner reports:

…All of which prompts renewed arguments about the Electoral College. The case for abolishing it is simple: Every American‘s vote should count the same. But it won’t happen. Two-thirds of each house of Congress and 38 of the 50 state legislatures will never go along.

The case against abolition is one suggested by the Framers’ fears that voters in one large but highly atypical state could impose their will on a contrary-minded nation. That largest state in 1787 was Virginia, home of four of the first five presidents. New York and California, by remaining closely in line with national opinion up through 1996, made the issue moot.

California’s 21st century veer to the left makes it a live issue again. In a popular vote system, the voters of this geographically distant and culturally distinct state, whose contempt for heartland Christians resembles imperial London’s disdain for the “lesser breeds” it governed, could impose something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation. Sounds exactly like what the Framers strove to prevent.

Can you imagine the Presidential campaign without the Electoral College?

This is a county-by-county map of the 2016 Presidential election:

2016countymapelectionHow many of the states would have had a chance to meet the candidates if the Electoral College did not exist? Would Hillary have campaigned in the Midwest? Would Donald Trump have campaigned in Florida? Would a candidate ever come to Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska? Would those states every be represented in a Presidential election? As you can see, the Electoral College protects the rights of the smaller states. Without it, we would be governed by New York, California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts–states that are having problems keeping their state budgets under control. Do we really want them to take charge of the country?

 

Sometimes You Just Have To Wonder What Motivates People

In the 2016 Presidential Election, the third party candidates received about 4 percent of the votes. That is a combined total. Most estimates say that Jill Stein received about 1 percent of the vote. So why is Jill Stein demanding a recount? What does she have to gain?

Fox News posted an article today pointing out that Jill Stein’s call for a recount in several states has received twelve times more news coverage from ABC, NBC, and CBS than her campaign.

The article reports:

When Jill Stein was the Green Party’s candidate for U.S. president, the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) only gave her 36 seconds of coverage. However, as soon as she launched a campaign to contest the presidential election and demand a recount of ballots in several key states, the evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC managed to find 7 minutes and 26 seconds of coverage for her in just four days.

On November 26’s NBC “Nightly News,” anchor Lester Holt began a story on the recount by implying that the election may not be over yet, “if you thought the presidential election was behind us, word came today from the Hillary Clinton campaign that it will back the state-wide election recount effort put on by third party candidate Jill Stein in three key battle ground states.”

So what is going on? We all remember how the media treated Donald Trump. We all remember that the media did not want Donald Trump elected or his policies to be put in place. Why? Because the news media and the Democrats have a working system that pays well and provides access. Donald Trump is a threat to that system. Any doubt that can be thrown into the election results can be used to de-legitimize the Trump Presidency and the Trump Administration. That is part of the story. But there is even more. Jill Stein ended her campaign with serious campaign debt. She has already raised more money for the recount than she did for her campaign. (It would be interesting to know where the recount money is coming from.) The excess money raised for the recount can be used to pay off her campaign debt. Hillary Clinton has signed on to the effort because it keeps her in the spotlight in the hopes of running again in 2020. That is the only way foreign governments will continue paying large amounts of money to hear Bill Clinton speak or donate large amounts to the Clinton Foundation. There is no chance that the election results will be overturned (and a strong possibility that voter fraud on the part of the Democrats in Wisconsin may be discovered–The Gateway Pundit).

Get out the popcorn–this is going to be interesting.

The Impact Of President Obama On The Democratic Party

On November 10, The Washington Post posted an article about the impact of the Obama Administration on the Democratic Party.

This is a graph from that article:

democraticpartyWow.

The article states:

We tend to focus on the loss of the presidency as the example of Democratic failure. That’s blinkered. Since 2008, by our estimates, the party has shed 870 legislators and leaders at the state and federal levels — and that estimate may be on the low side. As Donald Trump might put it, that’s decimation times 50.

So what happened? The Democrats lost the Presidential race this year for many reasons. Hillary Clinton was a seriously flawed candidate. It became obvious that the Democratic primary was rigged to make sure she won. That was the first mistake. The history of scandal that follows the Clinton family was also a problem. I suspect that had Jim Webb been the candidate, the Democrats would have won the Presidency, but he was far too conservative for today’s Democratic party bosses. The Democratic Party has moved to the left. People like John Kennedy would be out of step with the current Democratic Party. The move left became obvious in 1992 when Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was denied a speaking slot at the Democratic Convention because he wanted to represent the pro-life minority. The leftward progress has accelerated since then.

America is a Representative Republic–not a Democracy. President Obama’s Administration has not brought America prosperity, peace, or security. Most Americans are not as well off as they were when President Obama took office. It has become very obvious that many of the lofty Democratic Party ideas do not work. ObamaCare is a prime example. It is time to go back to common sense–lower taxes, less government, encouraging a work ethic and the free market. These are principles that are totally alien to most of the Democratic party. Actually, they are alien to many Americans. However, Americans know when they are safe and prosperous and when they are not. I believe that is why the Democratic Party, at least temporarily, has collapsed in the past eight years.