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.

U.S. media ignores voter fraud in Austrian presidential election.

The world has truly become such a small place.  Last week, Austrians voted between an extreme conservative candidate and an extreme liberal candidate in the landlocked euro-zone nation's presidential election.  Austrians vote for President in the same manner as the French.  Anyone who wishes to contest the election and can afford the small entry fees, is welcome to run for president.  If one candidate earns fifty percent or more of the vote, then that person is declared the president.  If no one reaches the fifty percent mark, then the two candidates with the highest number of votes, run against each other in the second round, with the winner being declared president.  Although the Freedom Party candidate had a substantial lead in votes, his total fell beneath fifty percent, which necessitated a second round of voting, between the Freedom Party candidate and the left-wing Green Party representative.  The conservative Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer embarrassed the sitting government and mainstream politicians, by coming in first by such a large margin.  Unfortunately for both Hofer and those of us who support free and fair elections, the result of the second round were far from open and fair.  Aftee the day's voting was complete, conservative Freedom Party candidate Hofer  was ahead of his opponent, Green Party candidate Alexander van der Billen, by less than one percent.  Hofer had won every province in Austria but two; unfortunately for Hofer, one of the provinces he lost included the capital city of Vienna, which has a huge majority of Green party voters amongst its residents.  Before Hofer could celebrate his razor-thin victory, 700,000 postal votes still had to becounted.  Postal votes in Austria are similar to absentee votes in the United States; thry are mailed in early by folks who either will be out of country on election day, or just prefer to avoid the crowds.  Another difference between postal voting in Austria and Absentee Voting in the United States is the ease in which fraud can impact on the postal vote's final tally.  You see, postal votes are collected and processed by the current administration, which placed third in the election and was strongly supporting the Green Party candidate.  Almost immediately discrepencies were observed with the postal vote count.  In four separate polling locations, evidence was discovered which pointed to apparent fraud.  The problem was so obvious that Hofer supporters were incensed and damanded an investigation.  Why?  Because the Green Party candidate managed to outpoll Hofer in postal votes by just enough margin to declare victory, which he quickly did.

Why should we care what happens in Austria?  Because the conservative Freedom Party wasopenly calling for a refugee policy that was in contrast to the declared position of Germany and France.  In fact, Hofer represents what the majority of Austrians, and probably the majority of French and Germans believe.  Hofer points out the frightening reality that the current policy espoused by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, which has no limitations, qualifications or boundaries, will no doubt greatly increase the number of refugees trying to find a home in Europe.  Back in the day, when a nation fell under the authority of a despot, the people eventually rose up and returned Democracy to their lives.  The American Revolutionary War is a good starting point.  The colonists had no place of retreat to escape the tyranny of England and George II, so they showed tremendous courage and fought against their oppressor.  Many young men died in the conflict, but the sacrifice was not in vain.  Romania provides a good example from a more recent period.  After four decades of eastern-European style Socialism, the people of Romania rose up against the security police, and dictator Nicoli Ceaucescu and his harridan wife were executed by a people's court.  Democracy has returned to Romania.  What we are experiencing in 2016 is quite different, at least in Africa and the Middle East.  It's true that some groups rose up against Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad; but now those who are dissatisfied or have lost their homes, give their life savings to despicable smugglers, in the hope of being granted residency in what they believe are exceedingly wealthy, generous societies in Europe.  The same situation flourishes in the poorest counties in the world, all mostly located in sub-Saharan Africa.  Instead of encouraging people to leave the land of their birth, we should assist them in improving life at home.  Sometimes this assistance comes in the form of military support, which is acceptable.  Tyranny roots itself in deep by creating police states.  Live by the sword, die by the sword, as the old saying goes.

The day after the postal votes in Austria were counted, it was obvious that the Green candidate, van der Billen, who along with the current Austrian government, supports the open policy on refugees that has been established by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, was somehow going to overcome Hofer's lead.  It was also apparent that information coming from at least four voting precincts was very questionable.  In one instance, van der Billen received more postal votes than the total number of postal votes that were actually submitted before the election.  In fact, one federal employee admitted to fraud regarding the number of postal votes for the Green candidate.  Sadly, the international press, including CNN, Reuters, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and NPR were quick to point out the liberal Green Party victory in Austria, because it demonstrated that the good Austrian people were not opposed to more refugees.  Breitbart was the only news service in the U.S. who mentioned the irregularities.  This decision by the international press to ignore voter fraud was instrumental in the current government in Vienna's decision to certify the vote and declare van der Billen as President.  I believe this is the first time that the Green Party has won such a high elected position anywhere in the world.  I was very disappointed that the Austrian Freedom Party didn't raise more hell.  Norbert Hofer publicly thanked the voters, and promised that in the next election, these type of shenanigans would not occur, and the Freedom Party would win outright.  I hope the Freedom Party has the opportunity to contest another election.