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.

I watched a fifteen year-old girl burn the American flag on the news last night.

I recall Barack Obama beating John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, and I remember quite well in 2012 when Obama did the same to Mitt Romney.  I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 because I didn't believe he had the life experience to be president.  By 2012, I had determined that I did not share Obama's perspective on the history of our nation, nor did I agree with his economic and foreign policies.  I was particularly disturbed by his use of Executive Action, and by the doubling of the national debt to the astronomical amount of twenty trillion dollars.  I was not happy in 2008, and I was equally disappointed in 2012.  Almost half of America voted against Obama in 2012, so I assume that they were just as frustrated.  Interestingly enough, the folks who lost in 2008 and 2012 are the ones who support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.  If you didn't know better, you might have some fears that after losing two consecutive elections to a president who openly supports draconian gun control laws, armed Republicans might be rioting in the streets.  But you know better.

Instead, the election of 2016 will be remembered for the riots, looting, property burning and physical assaults that took place in many U.S. cities on the nights immediately following the election.  While its true that Hillary Clinton will likely win the popular vote by a tiny percentage, no one can reasonably argue that Donald Trump did not win the election.  Our electoral system awards the candidate who wins the most electoral votes.  After they get around to calling Michigan, Donald Trump will have won 306 electoral votes to Clinton's 232.  IF our elections were decided by popular vote, Trump would have spent a great deal more time in Texas and California.  But our system is not keyed into the popular vote.  Both candidates knew this fact, and both put together strategies which would ideally accrue 270 electoral votes.  Trump's strategy was successful, Clinton's was not.  It really is that simple.

The day after the election, President Obama and Secretary Clinton both acknowledged Trump's victory, and asked the American people to put the disagreements behind us, and work together for a better future.  For some reason, tens of thousands of Clinton supporters chose to ignore this request, and instead decided to express their frustration by rioting and destroying personal property.  My first reaction was to be pragmatic.  Let these people release their anger, and then, after a few nights, we can get back to life as usual.  It was about this time that I saw the news story on public High School teachers in California who were leading their students to the demonstrations.  The students were then provided U.S. flags, lighter fluid, and matches.  One fifteen year-old from an obscenely expensive private school in the San Francisco area, announced to the camera, "I'm queer and I'm not going to take being oppressed anymore by this fascist government".  She then proceeded to light up Old Glory is a sea of flames.  You can't imagine my anger at that moment.  My father earned three Purple Hearts fighting for her freedom, and the soldiers that have died in various conflicts made the ultimate sacrifice, so this spoiled, selfish, piggish child could burn a flag.  She wasn't alone- groups of teachers from numerous public schools directed their students to the nearest television crews, so they could heap scorn on President-Elect Trump and the fascist, racists who voted him into office.

I don't have any resentment to the young kids who were out in the street protesting.  I save all my disgust and anger for the political activist educators who have no qualms about using children to express their particular political perspective.  Fifteen year old students should not self-identify as "queer activist soldiers", nor should they leave a perfectly good classroom to join a protest that they really don't understand.  The only people who are screaming about deportations are those on the left.  Its reprehensible to scare people for political gain, especially when the issue involves families.  No doubt immigration is an important issue as far as I'm concerned.  I've spent more than enough time in foreign countries to know that secure borders are necessary in order to have national security.  We can't continue to allow foreigners to cross our border at their discretion, without proper documentation.  In addition, our social welfare net can't support the entire population of Central America.  Its called Entitlements, folks, and its the main reason we have twenty trillion dollars of debt.  Everytime I pick up a newspaper, I find another article referring to sanctuary cities and their determination to provide undocumented aliens with access to social aid/programs.  It's a nice idea, but  it's just not feasible.  Just like every family has to live within a budget that is dictated by income and expenditures, so the Federal government is supposed to spend money equal to its revenue.  Politicians no longer worry about the national budget; they just sell more debt to China, and provide more benefits to just about anyone who has the time to apply.

This country is filled with angry people.  On the left, everyone hates Donald Trump, and on the right, people are determined to undo some of the accomplishments of the Obama Administration.  It would be so much simpler if the folks on the left just accepted that Donald Trump is the president-elect, and  in four years you will have the chance to boot him out, if you like.  I for one don't want to see any more people disrespecting the flag.  The left seems to have a real problem with a radical element within its own tent, that espouses violent revolution and threatens to assassinate elected leaders.  The left needs to address this problem, just as conservatives must on occasion distance themselves from milita groups.  I hope that this mess can be cleaned up quickly, because I don't think a Trump Administration will accept this type of civil disobedience forever.  Leaders of the Democratic Party need to come out and publicly disavow the rioting, the destruction of property, and the burning of the flag.  We have sixty-one million people standing on opposite ends of this last election, but we have only one nation to embrace, heal and improve, and we have to be united to make things better for everyone.