Green Party candidate requests official recounts in three states in an effort to raise questions about the legitimacy of the 2016 Presidential Election.

Just when you thought that the burdensome, depressing 2016 Presidential Election was finally over, Green Party candidate Jill Stein has reminded us just how much the Liberal political establishment disrespects our electoral process.  Stein raised and spent millions of dollars on a campaign which was destined to never reach the five percent mark.  I can only assume that the money Ms. Stein spent on her exercise in vanity would have provided tens of thousands of poor Americans with food and clothing as winter approaches, but even Stein has her priorities, I suppose.  Stein has decided to pursue recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, states won by Donald Trump by very thin margins. According to Hillary for America attorney Mark Elias, "we believe we have an obligation to the more than sixty-four million Americans who cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings so that an accurate vote count will be reported."  Why is Mr. Elias commenting on Green Party nominee Jill Stein's request for recounts?  Because, not surprisingly, the Hillary campaign has jumped on the recount band wagon as well.  But lets be honest, the Clinton campaign has been in cahoots with Jill Stein since the idea of a recount was broached.  The idea was to encourage Stein and the looney Green Party to request the recounts, so that if the results remain the same (which they should, notwithstanding Democratic shenanigans), then Hillary wouldn't appear to be a sore loser.  This entire development is full of bits of comedy.  The Democrats have so much confidence in our electoral system and the honesty of the American voter, that they fight tooth and nail against any voting identification requirements.  So if the Democrats have so much confidence in the system, then why do we need a recount in three states?  Can the system that is so foolproof that voter fraud is impossible, screw up in all three states that basically decided the election?

The insincerity of the recount circus is truly disturbing.  The Democrats will have us believe that they are attempting to ensure that every vote is counted, especially in the states which were decided by small margins.  Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were decided by small percentages, but in the end, they voted for Donald Trump.  What about New Hampshire and Minnesota?  Clinton won New Hampshire by less than four thousand votes (forty-seven point six to forty-seven point two), and Minnesota by less than forty-three thousand votes (forty-six percent to forty-five percent).  Colorado, Maine, and Nevada were also within a few percentage points.  But these states were won by Hillary Clinton, so the concern for the sanctity of the individual vote goes right out the window when a Democrat has been declared the winner.

When the leaders of this effort discuss the process and their motivation, they always mention the "popular vote".  They assume that the average American is so easily distracted, that they can create a national wave of anger around the idea that Hillary Clinton was the "legitimate" winner in the 2016 Presidential Election.  We went through this once before, in 2000, and many people were reminded regarding how our electoral system functions.  We have an electoral system to prevent large urban agglomerations from single-handedly picking our president every four years.  Enough people live in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, to arguably decide each and every national election.  Many years ago, persons much wiser than myself decided that each state should have an impact on national elections, and candidates should not focus their entire campaigns on just three or four urban areas.  I like the electoral system, but I can understand why someone wouldn't; fortunately, because we live in the United States of America, you can change the process through legislative action.  If you believe that the popular vote should decide the winner of our presidential elections, then get involved, build a movement, seek out like-minded persons and politicians, and draft an amendment to the Constitution.

As for persons who continue to disseminate the idea that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, therefore she should be president, I can only suggest a simple review of recent history.  Both Clinton and Trump earned their nominations after successful but contentious primary campaigns.  After earning their respective nominations, both candidates huddled with advisors and created plans to accrue the two-hundred seventy electoral votes necessary to be declared the winner.  Neither candidate discussed what steps would be needed in order to win the popular vote.  During the campaign season, the talking heads on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and everywhere else, continually analyzed the map of electoral votes, not of population.  If the popular vote were the deciding factor in the presidential election, Donald Trump would have made more than one trip to Texas.  In fact, he would have made quite a few trips to California, New York, and Illinois.  Trump did not need to make repeated trips to Texas, because Texas is a solidly red state.  But if he had campaigned heavily in Texas, I am convinced he would have added another one million votes to his total.  Trump did not campaign in California or Chicago, but regular visits could very well have added an additional million votes to his popular total.  But Trump didn't need to visit Bakersfield, or Cicero, or Syracuse, New York.  His team realized beforehand that he needed electoral votes, not the popular vote, so a plan was crafted by which Trump would sweep the bell-weather states of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and either Michigan or Pennsylvania.  Trump campaigned hard in those states, and for that reason, he is the President-Elect.

When Did Christianity Become So Unfashionable?

Link: Wikipedia on Religion in the United States.


(Before reading the post today, please keep in mind that what I write is solely my opinion.  It is not my intention to inflame, or aggravate, any person who holds opposing viewpoints.  If you have difficulty with the idea of a pluralistic society and freedom of expression for all, then maybe you should stop reading this and go pick up last month's issue of Mother Jones.  Cheers.)

I have always been fascinated by the need to portray every U.S. presidential candidate as a "devout church-going Christian".  When I was just a boy, I decided (a bit prematurely, it turns out) that as soon as I was an adult, I would quit going to church because it was so "boring".  Then I see these guys, fighting tooth and nail to be president, making a show of their absolute thrill of being in church, at least as long as the camera was rolling.  I have to give credit where its due: President Barrack Obama doesn't pretend to be a churchgoer.  He is our first president to not attend church (except on those annoying important days, like Christmas and Easter).  If there is one thing that really pisses me off, its affectation.  I don't believe that people should do things just for appearances sake.  If Obama doesn't agree or appreciate what is being expressed on the pulpit, then he should just head to a Golf Course somewhere (no reason to waste the day).  I do have a bone to pick with the president when it comes to religion, though.  As much as I appreciate his candidness today, where was that candor for the past twenty years?  The Obamas were regular attendees at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and they had the unique opportunity of hearing Reverend Jeremiah Wright speak every Sunday.  In fact, Reverend Wright baptized both of Obama's daughters.  I'm sure everyone remembers the controversy regarding Reverend Wright and his sermons, which regularly included hateful lectures directed at white people.  And we're not referencing just a few sermons.  Reverend Wright believes that white people purposely enslave blacks in America, and he considers the USA to be rotten at the core.  President Obama claimed that during the almost two decades that he attended Rev. Wright's church, he couldn't recall ever hearing that kind of message.  Interestingly enough, others who attended during the same time period, couldn't recall ever NOT hearing that kind of message.  So this is my observation: President Obama does not feel the need to attend church regularly now that he's in the oval office.  We can assume his daughters will receive whatever religious instruction the Obamas, as parents, believe is appropriate.  Obama attended church in Chicago.  He doesn't attend anymore, now that he lives in the White House.  Let me explain the difference between Chicago and DC.

President Obama is not a closest Muslim, although many Red-Staters chose to believe otherwise.  If Obama is a Muslim in hiding, he's in trouble.  Remember, Muslims have five obligations that stick around for life.  I have yet to see Obama pull out the prayer rug, and say a prayer in the direction of Mecca five times a day (Salat), and I think any diet choices because of Ramadan would have been detected.  In fact, I don't believe that Obama is a Christian, either.  He might be.  Most self-identified Christians no longer attend services on Sunday, so its possible that the Obamas fit into that group.   Personally, I don't buy it.  If anything, Barrack Obama is religious about his politics.  He wants badly to affect change in our society, because he views our country as terribly flawed.  He continued to attend Rev. Wright's sermons because the good Rev. Wright wasn't actually preaching about religion.  He was demagoguing about social justice and political action.  Obama has no problem attending religious events and ceremonies as a speaker, because he can control the message he is delivering.  And the line between religion and social justice is fine indeed......if it exists at all.

I have a number of great friends who are Mormon.  I also have friends who are Methodists and others who are Lutheran.  I recently met an amazing young man named Kevin who I'm convinced will one day be President himself, and Kevin is a regular, church-going Baptist.  Just in regular conversation, I learned that each of these Christian denominations are active overseas, working to feed people, build homes and vaccinate children.  And I don't believe for one second that their assistance is contingent upon a Baptism Ceremony.  I am referring to people who have accepted the truly rewarding obligation of helping others.  As a Roman Catholic who has spent a bit of time researching the Holy See, I am aware of the countless outreach efforts that the Catholic Church sponsors.  You will find Priests feeding the hungry and treating the wounded in Syria, and you will find Nuns burying the deceased and treating the sick in Ebola-ravaged Sierra Leone.  No one has a monopoly on philanthropy.  But I find the approach from the U.S. government to be confusing.  When George W. Bush was in office, the government went out of its way to assist private charities and aid organizations, regardless of religious affiliation (if any).  Bush made it a hallmark of his presidency to encourage young people to return to volunteer work.  I'm curious if Peace Corps numbers increased during the Bush years;  I'll check and get back to you.  In 2015, the Obama Administration continues to encourage people to volunteer resources and time, but anything with a religious tag needs to be avoided.  I understand that it can be a slippery slope.  If the US government works with one religious charity but choses not to work with another (possibly because it presented fraudulent documents, etc.), then Uncle Sam can be accused of playing "religious favorites".  But the avoidance of all things religious goes way beyond charity or the First Amendment.  I used to live in DC, and recently I returned to visit a friend.  We set aside two days to visit the White House and the Capital Building.  In fact, we did the loop; we started at the White House, walked to the Lincoln Memorial, around to the Washington Monument, hopped across 15th Street, up past the Smithsonian and on to the reflecting pool and the Capital Building.  I love DC so much and I recommend it for tourists unreservedly.  But something has changed about the Capital.  Religion has disappeared completely.  You won't see a mention anywhere.  It was a Sunday, and I couldn't find anyone who appeared to be either on their way, or returning from, church services.  I heard no bells ringing, and no historic tours with a religious theme at any of the museums.

I can't say, in good conscience, that religion has become unfashionable.  Au Contraire.  Its cool to pop into a Hindu Temple and educate yourself a bit, and Buddhism can be fascinating as well.  Linguists teaching Arabic are a valuable commodity in DC, as young diplomats at Foggy Bottom and young diplomats in-training at Georgetown University buy up all the Barnes & Noble copies of "The Idiot's Guide to Islam".  But Christianity is, like, yesterday's religion: a bit stale, old-fashioned, and boring.  Please don't quote me.  This is what I assume is going on in the minds of twenty-somethings nowadays.  And our president manages to be the most uber-cool of all.  he goes on Jimmy Kimmel, he makes out a NCAA basketball bracket, and he no longer goes to church.  The truth is, America is changing, and its not Barrack Obama's fault  In fact, if you're a Christian, you have to have faith that all of this scary, bad news fits into His plan somehow.  Before 2008, the United States still seemed determined to find its own way, and let others follow.  Now its 2015, and we are right in step behind Europe, which is exactly where the Progressives like Obama believe we should be -BEHIND Europe, not leading, but following.  When I think of the fundamental changes that have occurred in the United States over the past six years, I almost lose my breath.  The number of folks who are dependent on Washington DC for everything, from food to wiping their ass, has skyrocketed.  And if you try and motivate people to do for themselves, you are a cruel, racist, hater.  Our military is shrinking, and veterans continue to have trouble finding appropriate medical care.  I have to say that the disappearance of Christianity from everyday life has coincided with a host of bad news.  Its high-time we embrace the simple message in that statement, and turn this ship around.