HILLARYS FINAL DISGRACE

Benghazi. Emails. Even leaving her supporters out in the cold on election night while she smashed things and hit people… Just when you think she cannot sink any lower, she finds a way.

Maybe Hillary will slip the Democrat Secretary of State in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan a cool million each to throw away some Trump votes, changing the election. Hillary and the Democrats are out to delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency. There is no ceiling on how low the Clintons will stoop to win. They are amoral elitists who have no concern for people, only themselves.

GOODBYE HILLARY – GET LOST! GO CRAWL BACK INTO THE HOLE WHERE YOU CAME FROM!

The Left Is Out To Destroy Myron Ebell

There are two planks in the Liberal/Left’s catechism that you never want to mess with.

  1. Abortion
  2. Man-made Global Warming (OK you can call it Climate Change)

And Trump will mess with both. First on this list is Global Warming. And expect all hell to break loose. The Left will not go down without a huge fight on this one.

The Daily Signal reports:

Climate Data Deniers Are Trying to ‘Bork’ Trump’s EPA Transition Leader

President-elect Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition leader, Myron Ebell, is a huge threat to the green gravy train. Now, with billions of crony dollars at stake, the green slander machine is doing all it can to slime him.

Following their standard tactic, advocates of big government cronyism have picked someone to demonize as the face of small-government, pro-freedom ideals.

Ebell is that face, and he’s enduring the left’s vilification for voicing reasonable thought on climate change policy. Though he bears the burden with grace and humor, there is no excuse for the personal attacks, which are designed to distract attention from the high stakes of the debate.

What’s at stake for big green is billions upon billions of dollars taken from taxpayers and consumers and given to green crony businesses. Just for wind energy alone, grants, tax credits, loan guarantees, and other subsidies add up to at least $176 billion.

 What isn’t at stake—contrary to the left’s talking points—is the Earth’s climate.

As costly as our current energy and climate policies are to the economy (they would cost the U.S. a net loss t of 400,000 jobs and up to $2.5 trillion), they are projected to have negligible impacts on global temperatures—even if you believe the questionable climate models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

When judged by their actual effect, it becomes clear that the real goal of international climate policies is a power and money grab that no one, not even its most vocal supporters, believes will have much impact on the climate.

In fact, Christiana Figueres—until recently the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change—noted that the goal of those policies was to rearrange the world economy:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.

The big problem for the framework convention, the IPCC, renewable energy hustlers, and climate rent-seekers of all sorts is that Ebell is on to their game. So, out come the daggers of personal attacks and character assassination.

Many in the media are more than happy to abet the groups who perpetrate these attacks. The Media Research Center provides a nice sampler of these attacks and associated yellow journalism here.

Myron Ebell

Myron Ebell

 

It’s not at all clear what the name-callers mean when they call Ebell a “climate denier,” but in a bizarre semantic twist, they appear to mean that he is not a hysterical climate data denier.

Like most skeptics, Ebell recognizes the basic carbon dioxide science: Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere may somewhat increase warming. But he also recognizes the much more important question: How much is this “somewhat”?

Ebell and those following the numbers know that the Earth’s warming to date is much less than the IPCC models predicted and that the actual data don’t point to a climate catastrophe.

In addition, the unhinged claims of ever-worsening, extreme climate events don’t square with the data either. There are no upward trends in droughts, floods, tornadoes, or hurricanes.

Robert Bork

Robert Bork

Because knowledge of these facts is such a threat to the climate-industrial complex, anyone who dares to expose the truth comes under threat of personal destruction.

In 1987, “Borking” became a term for getting shot down after the U.S. Senate torpedoed Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. We should not allow green activists to make “Ebelling” a synonym for “Borking.”

The Pollsters Tried To Transform America In the 2016 Election

 

The Lexington Libertarian doesn’t  believe there was a giant last minute shift. Rather the biased political polls who favored Hillary deliberately reported bogus numbers to deceive the American people into thinking that Hillary was winning. Some did this very subtly. In polling White males, they concentrated on the more affluent college-educated white males and excluded most of the High School degree only White Males. Many pollsters used 2000 or 2008 models that were outmoded. They failed to recognize that this was a very unusual year with Trump waging a very unorthodox campaign. They had no way to account for all those people who voted who had never voted before or who had not voted in decades. The last minute registered were never considered and did not make it into any polls.

Where Morris is right is that pollsters carried their prejudices into how they operated their polls and what questions they asked and who they chose to poll. They did not understand the rage of the American public and the importance of economics in the election – the lack of good paying jobs, stagnant wages, Obamacare and higher and higher taxes. American workers have steadily been taking home less money for a decade now. Yet the intelligentsia had their head in the clouds, preferring to debate such topics as who can use what bathroom instead of the plight of the average Blue Collar worker.

The Democrat Party lost the Blue Collar vote in this election for the first time since WWI. And the pollsters never saw it because they never asked the right questions from the right people. It was the Elite polling the Elite and THE FORGOTTEN PEOPLE, The silent Majority, were once again ignored which intensified their rage. They would have voted for Mussolini over Hillary just to make their point and get back at the Establishment for ignoring them. But the pollsters never saw this because they were in the wrong states using an antiquated model asking the wrong questions from the wrong people. The Rust Belt was poorly polled, the pollsters assuming that these states were in the bag for Hillary. But pollsters should not ASSUME.

But the point to remember is that most of these polling outfits are not stupid. THEY WERE DOING ALL THIS DELIBERATELY because it fit their narrative and because they wanted to aid the person they wanted to win – Hillary. If they could convince Joe Six-Pack that the election was all but over he might stay home instead and crack open another beer. You have to remember that with the Left everything is political, everything is politicized, EVERYTHING!

Obama’s Legacy A Disaster For America

Well, Jimmy Carter can get out of the doghouse now. He is no longer the worst American President ever. That distinction belongs to Obama. Whether it’s here at home or abroad everything Obama touched turned sour. His downfall was his strict adherence to his Marxist-Socialist ideology. Unlike other Democrat Presidents like rapist Bill Clinton, he was unable to compromise and go with the flow, ebbing and flowing with the tide. No, Obama had to buck the tide and always do it his way, the way of his radical ideology or no way at all. Unable to think outside the radical Leftist box, he was doomed to failure from the start. Much of his stamp on America will be undone by his successor, The Donald!

Townhall reports:

5 Reasons Barack Obama Will Be Viewed As One Of The Worst Presidents of All Time

Compiling a list of reasons why Barack Obama is a terrible president seems like a project for a book rather than a column. However, when we start looking at the catastrophic mistakes he’s made that may reverberate for years to come, it’s clear that he’s been a disaster for America on a scale that few other Presidents can match. Just look at his record.

1) Nearly Doubling The National Debt: Let’s see, what was it that Barack Obama said about our debt back in 2008 when he was trying to convince Americans to vote him into office?

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from 5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added 4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over 9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

Meanwhile, once he got into office, Obama added more debt than all previous presidents combined (which even the liberals at Politifact admit is true). Before Obama, it would have taken some real work to stave off a debt-driven economic collapse down the road, but because of the amount of debt he added on, it’s now probably unavoidable. This country survived the Brits burning the White House in the War of 1812, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11, but all of those horrors combined will pale to the long-term damage to this country Obama will cause with his reckless spending.

2) Unleashing The Genie From The Nuclear Weapons Bottle In The Middle East: Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons has been a high priority since those weapons came into being. It was obviously worrisome when nations that are not friendly to America acquired nuclear weapons capable of reducing our greatest cities to ash in a moment, but there were important considerations that kept those countries from ever acting. You nuke us, we nuke you. Okay, we have a stalemate because no functional state wants mutually assured destruction.

Of course, that kind of stalemate doesn’t work with basket-case nations run by totalitarian dictators or religious fanatics… which brings us to the Iran Deal Obama signed that will end with that monstrous nation acquiring nuclear weapons. Inevitably, if Iran develops nukes, various other countries across the Middle East will also develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves. Israel may already have nukes, but it’s also not going to try to subjugate nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The same can’t be said of Iran.

In other words, Obama’s Iran Deal marks the beginning of a nuclear arms race in an area largely run by religious fanatics and anti-American dictators. The chances of a nuclear war or even more importantly, a nuke going off on American soil, have increased astronomically because of Obama’s foolishness.

3) Facilitating Illegal Immigration: The federal government has never put the amount of money and resources needed into shutting down illegal immigration. Unfortunately, crooked businesses that benefit from the practice have always paid off enough politicians to keep that from happening.

However, the Obama Administration’s practice of actually encouraging illegal immigration was a new low in our nation’s history. Obama illegally tried to give millions of illegal aliens the ability to stay here without fear of deportation; states and localities that enforced immigration law were harassed by the DOJ; he blocked the border patrol from doing its job and increased the number of refugees being imported. By doing so, Obama destroyed the rule of law, created a protected criminal class and imported poverty into the country because he thought it would benefit him politically even if it hurt the country in the process.

4) Encouraging Racial Polarization: No president ever had a better opportunity to encourage racial reconciliation than Obama. Instead, America’s first black president went in exactly the opposite direction and tried to create as much racial polarization as possible because he thought it benefited him politically. Unlike Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, Obama is subtler. His administration encouraged hatred of police, turned a blind eye to race riots and did nothing to slow down the incessant cries of “racism” from his supporters that greeted every disagreement with Obama’s policies. During Obama’s presidency, the Left openly used race as a political weapon and it created a level of racial strife in America that we haven’t seen since the sixties.

5) Losing A War We Had Already Won In Iraq: Today in 2016, people tend to forget that Bush had largely pacified Iraq with the surge before he left office. By 2010, things had gotten so stable that the Obama Administration was trying to take credit for Iraq. Here’s Joe Biden,

I am very optimistic about…Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

Despite the fact that our generals wanted him to work out a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government so we could leave troops there, Obama wanted political credit for getting all our troops out of the country and he didn’t much care what happened afterwards.

So we pulled out of Iraq rather than leaving a residual force there as we have in nations like Germany, Japan and South Korea. Predictably, the whole country then fell apart. Worse yet, because of Obama’s incompetence, ISIS was able to take large swathes of territory in Iraq and it became a major player on the world stage. All the blood and treasure we spent in that nation was squandered because an incompetent politician cared more about getting a minor political advantage than winning a war.

The Shunning Of Trump Voters

When we had Liberals and Conservatives we used to have some healthy debates but when the dust cleared we shook hands and went and had some beer and pizza together.

Liberals have been supplanted by Leftists who take no prisoners.

Conservatives think those on the Left are just wrong. Leftists think that  Conservatives are evil.

There is no room in the life of a Leftist for an alternative view of politics or society or any position that they take. The “Progressive ” Way is the only way and if you don’t sign onto the Progressive Agenda, well Leftists will unfriend you, refuse to do business with you, stop talking to you altogether. They may even divorce you.

There are two people who have an uncanny ability to get into the mind of the Left and understand what they are really about. They would be Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Prager. Unfortunately, both run talk shows that are on at the same time opposite each other.

In this case, we post Prager’s words on the subject:

 

10 Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters From Their Lives

10 Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters From Their Lives

Many Hillary Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and even family members, who voted for Donald Trump. It is so common that The New York Times published a front-page article on the subject headlined, “Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving, Too.”

The article begins with three stories:

“Matthew Horn, a software engineer from Boulder, Colo., canceled Christmas plans with his family in Texas. Nancy Sundin, a social worker in Spokane, Wash., has called off Thanksgiving with her mother and brother. Ruth Dorancy, a software designer in Chicago, decided to move her wedding so that her fiancé’s grandmother and aunt, strong Trump supporters from Florida, could not attend.”

The Times acknowledges that this phenomenon is one-sided, saying, “Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald J. Trump.”

A number of people who voted for Trump called my show to tell me that their daughters had informed them that they would no longer allow their parents to see their grandchildren. And one man sent me an email reporting that his brother-in-law’s mother told him that she “no longer had a son.”

All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided? Why don’t we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president — “fundamentally (transform) the United States of America.”

 In other words, conservatives were not one whit less fearful of Clinton and the Democrats than Democrats were of Trump and Republicans.

Yet virtually no conservatives cut off contact with friends, let alone parents, who supported Clinton.

Here are 10 reasons left-wingers cut Trump voters from their lives.

1. Just like our universities shut out conservative ideas and speakers, more and more individuals on the left now shut out conservative friends and relatives as well as conservative ideas.

2. Many, if not most, leftists have been indoctrinated with leftism their entire lives.

This is easily shown.

There are far more conservatives who read articles, listen to and watch broadcasts of the left and have studied under left-wing teachers than there are people on the left who have read, listened to or watched anything of the right or taken classes with conservative instructors.

As a result, those on the left really believe that those on the right are all SIXHIRB: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted. Not to mention misogynistic and transphobic.

3. Most left-wing positions are emotion-based. That’s a major reason people who hold leftist views will sever relations with people they previously cared for or even loved. Their emotions (in this case, irrational fear and hatred) simply overwhelm them.

 4. Since Karl Marx, leftists have loved ideas more than people. All Trump voters who have been cut off by children, in-laws and lifelong friends now know how true that is.

5. People on the right think that most people on the left are wrong; people on the left think that most people on the right are evil. Decades of labeling conservative positions as “hateful” and labeling conservative individuals as “sexist,” “intolerant,” “xenophobic,” “homophobic,” “racist” and “bigoted” have had their desired effect.

6. The left associates human decency not so much with personal integrity as with having correct — i.e. progressive — political positions. Therefore, if you don’t hold progressive positions, you lack decency. Ask your left-wing friends if they’d rather their high school son or daughter cheat on tests or support Trump.

7. Most individuals on the left are irreligious, so the commandment “Honor your father and your mother” means nothing to those who have cut off relations with parents because they voted for Trump.

8. Unlike conservatives, politics gives most leftists’ lives meaning. Climate change is a good example. For leftists, fighting carbon emissions means saving human existence on Earth. Now, how often does anyone get a chance to literally save the world? Therefore, to most leftists, if you voted for Trump, you have both negated their reason for living and are literally destroying planet Earth. Why would they have Thanksgiving or Christmas with such a person?

 9. The left tends toward the totalitarian. And every totalitarian ideology seeks to weaken the bonds between children and parents. The left seeks to dilute parental authority and replace it with school authority and government authority. So when your children sever their bond with you because you voted for Trump, they are acting like the good totalitarians the left has molded.

10. While there are kind and mean individuals on both sides of the political spectrum, as a result of all of the above, there are more mean people on the left than on the right. What other word than “mean” would anyone use to describe a daughter who banished her parents from their grandchildren’s lives because of their vote?

I wish none of this were true. But there is a way to prove me wrong: Re-friend your friends and relatives who voted for Trump, and tell everyone who has ended relations with family members — especially with parents — to reach out to them and welcome them back into their lives.

THE REAL REASON DEMOCRATS WANT A PRESIDENTIAL VOTE RECOUNT Part 2

 

American Thinker reports:

Jill Stein’s vote count madness

Jill Stein’s Presidential recount scheme has been dismissed by some as “nothing more than an expensive political stunt” and a “gimmick to promote Stein and the Green Party.”

But leftists are experts at deploying deception and chicanery to achieve their ends by whatever means necessary.  And the serial offender Democrats by any name are up to no good on this one.

Consider the plot developed so far:

  • A “group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” claims to have “found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.”
  • Said group claims that “in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots.”
  • Said group “has not found proof of hacking or manipulation,” but claims their “statistical analysis” indicates that “Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.”
  • Said group holds a “conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case.”
  • Recounting and overturning the results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would, coincidentally, flip the presidential election to Hillary Clinton.
  • The Clinton campaign and the Obama White House are at first said to be reluctant to pursue the issue.

And then the plot thickens:

  • The Wisconsin recount request is filed just before the Friday afternoon deadline, with the Stein operation noting that their 1.04% candidate is “standing up for an election system that we can trust,” adding that their Green Party also advocates “an end to voter ID laws and voter suppression.”
  • Wisconsin agrees to undertake the recount, which they have until December 13 to complete, according to a “federal ‘safe harbor’ law” that “requires presidential recounts to be completed within 35 days of the election,” as reported by USA Today.
  • The Wisconsin recount operation will involve 72 county clerks and 1,854 municipal clerks.
  • Michigan spent two weeks after the election counting ballots, with 83 county clerks posting certified results this week from 1,521 cities and townships.
  • Michigan uses paper ballots, hence the justification for a recount: “a huge difference between pre-election polling and the actual result.”  Hmm.
  • The Los Angeles Times, concerned at the time about Donald Trump not accepting election results, posted a column on October 20 regarding the complications of a Pennsylvania recount:

But in the event of a disputed election, this battleground state – one of the few that relies almost entirely on computerized voting, with no paper backup – could end up creating a far bigger mess.

… Computer experts says the old electronic voting machines have a hidden flaw that worries them in the event of a very close election. The machines do not produce a paper ballot or receipt, leaving nothing to be recounted if the election outcome were in doubt.

The author of a report on the subject adds that “[t]he nightmare scenario would be if Pennsylvania decides the election and it is very close. You would have no paper records to do a recount.”

  • The Pennsylvania filing deadline is Monday, and Michigan’s deadline is Wednesday.
  • The Stein recount web page said over $5.9 million had been raised as of late Saturday, with up to $7 million needed to cover filing fees, legal fees, and observer costs for the three recounts.  Ms. Stein raised only $3.5 million for her entire presidential campaign.  Aren’t we popular all of a sudden?
  • The Stein web page also states that “Our effort to recount votes in those states is not intended to help Hillary Clinton.”  Mm-hmm.
  • A Fox Business report discusses that “speculation that Stein’s push for a recount is actually part of a plot by the Clintons to contest the election results without having their names associated with it[.]”
  • The Clinton campaign said on Saturday that it “will participate in the Wisconsin recount,” saying it “ha[s] largely found no evidence to conclude that the election was sabotaged” but adding “that the campaign is committed to helping ensure a fair recount process.”
  • The Clinton campaign says further that it will participate in the Pennsylvania and Michigan recounts if they come to pass, although “the margins in the three Midwestern states are larger than any that has been reversed by a recount.”

Zerohedge has posted an analysis from ibankcoin, a financial news and commentary site, of the Stein recount fundraising rate over the Wednesday through Saturday period, showing an interesting pattern:

In summary, Jill Stein raised an enormous amount of money in the opening hours of her campaign to recount the votes in the all important swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Although she claims her fund raising efforts were entirely grass roots, the facts suggest otherwise. By what I’m seeing here, big donors stepped in early to put her over the top – then the grass roots plebs stepped into the toss nickels at her – with donations shrinking from $4,800 per minute to just over 40 bucks now. Interestingly, the rate by which she’s raised funds have an inverse correlation to the amount of press she’s been receiving.

In other words, none of this makes any sense. Where did all of the early money come from?

Even Slate seems to be annoyed at the tactics Ms. Stein has employed, complaining about the increasing fundraising targets and the lack of solid evidence and lamenting that “Stein doesn’t actually want to help Clinton”:

After all, during the campaign, Stein made clear she didn’t prefer Clinton over Trump and has now said that the way Clinton has stayed out of the recount fray only shows the Democratic Party is corrupt.

Yes, even Democrats stumble upon the truth occasionally.

As the Democrats flail away at their lost electoral cause, therightscoop  notes the irony:

This is one of the most delicious stories this Thanksgiving – Jill Stein has been blamed by liberals for screwing over Hillary in the election, and now they’re accusing her of scamming money for a recount!!!

Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway cut to the chase on Saturday:

What a pack of sore losers.  After asking Mr. Trump and his team a million times on the trail, ‘Will HE accept the election results?’ it turns out Team Hillary and their new BFF Jill Stein can’t accept reality.

And President-Elect Trump:

This recount is just a way for Jill Stein, who received less than one percent of the vote overall and wasn’t even on the ballot in many states, to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount.

While it appears to be highly unlikely that the Stein recount operation would be able to overturn margins of 68,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 27,000 votes in Wisconsin, and 11,000 votes in Michigan, the process of recounting 6.8 million votes in Pennsylvania, 2.9 million votes in Wisconsin, and 4.8 million votes in Michigan will be complex and difficult at best, creating “numerous challenges and significant frustration.”

If the Stein recount comes to fruition in all three states, Democratic media that hunger for a story to cast a pall over the Trump transition will look to fuel a vote count controversy, sowing further division and discord after an election they can’t get over losing.

Saul Alinsky rides again.

The Real Reason Democrats Want A Presidential Vote Recount

Isn’t it ironic that in the Republican Primaries at the first debate the moderator asked all the candidates if they would support the winner and not form a third party and Trump reluctantly did so? And he was severely criticized by his peers for reluctantly doing so. So what happened? Trump won and some of those who pledged to support the nominee refused to do so.

Then in the general election, Trump was asked if he would support the outcome of the election and he said he would look at it when it’s over and tell us then. Hillary hands down said she would support the winner – because she thought that there was no way she could lose – and lambasted Trump for not automatically doing so. And the rest of the Democrats bashed Trump for not giving up his right to contest an election. Trump wanted to see how much voter fraud had influenced the election. Now the I’ll-support-the-winner Hillary is contesting the election for no good reason.

Honestly, the Democrats will win by any means necessary. The Left never gives up even when it loses. And if they still can’t win they can embarrass you. They can make you look illegitimate which is what they are trying to do with Trump.

One last tidbit. Michigan has already been recounted and Trump won twice. That’s why it took so long for Michigan to declare a winner. Now they may recount it for a second time.

The American Thinker reports:

The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states.  No recount ever changes thousands of votes.  I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters.  If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232.  No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it?  The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote  (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What the Democrats are trying to do here is gum up the works so that there is no new President authenticated at inauguration time. Then they will push to have Obama stay in the Oval Office until it is all sorted out – the mess they deliberately created so that they could inject chaos into the system and make Trump look illegitimate.

They will drag it out as long as they can. Meanwhile, Obama will keep the Southern Border wide open so that as many illegals as possible can flood into the U.S.A.