Share This Article with a Friend!


Transition to Trump: Electoral College thwarts the left, elects Donald Trump

It lacked the drama and suspense of vote tallies scrolling slowly across the TV screen on Election Night last month, but still the gathering of the Electoral College on Monday was something to behold.

All across America members of the constitutionally sanctioned body met in their appointed places to cast their votes. There weren’t any speeches or electioneering going on (at least that I could see). The video feed from Donald Trumpvarious state capitals basically just revealed a collection of people signing a series of documents.

It looked not unlike a court proceeding, very formal without much discussion. One might call it dull.

But despite the mundane nature of the presentation, the actions of America’s electors will be felt for years to come. Donald J. Trump received the requisite votes to be elected president yesterday. His election is now official and it didn’t even take some news anchor to make a projection and pronouncement to make it so.

As expected, protesters also made their views known. Kyle Feldscher of the Washington Examiner reports, “Protesters harangued electors not to cast their votes for President-elect Trump during Monday's Electoral College meetings around the country.

“The protests took place at state capitol buildings around the country, with protesters attempting to shame electors into casting their votes against the New York Republican.”

Feldscher’s article contains several videos depicting demonstrators shouting in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. One Pennsylvania elector was interviewed after the vote was taken (on Fox News) and he confirmed that law enforcement had to escort him and others to the capital to allow them to do their duties. The man confirmed he’d received thousands of emails from the anti-Trump left, a dozen copies of The Federalist Papers and a stranger even tried to break into his apartment complex this past weekend.

In seeing this I wondered…don’t these people have better things to do with their time?

One commonly held belief is that conservatives and Republicans are too busy working to engage in such frivolities -- and I’m a believer.

As Trump neared the magic 270 number on Monday afternoon, the pangs of pain and blame started emanating once again from the dry mouths of the Democrats. Kyle Cheney of Politico reported, “With Donald Trump poised to win a majority of the Electoral College vote Monday, Democratic leaders of an anti-Trump effort expressed anger and frustration toward Hillary Clinton and her top allies, insisting that their silence had all but doomed the long-shot plan to thwart Trump’s election.

“One Democratic elector with Clinton campaign ties claimed dozens of Democrats on the Electoral College were willing to embrace the unprecedented plan to throw their votes to a consensus Republican candidate — like Mitt Romney — as part of a strategy to coax GOP electors to abandon Trump. All they needed, the elector said, was a signal from Clinton or her top allies.”

Delusional. I haven’t seen any evidence that Republican electors would have gone for such a plot to oust Trump in favor of the 2012 Republican nominee and sorry as it is to say, the Republican voters were the only ones that mattered on Monday. Romney was perhaps deprived of his chance to lose again in the Electoral College. A shame, isn’t it?

And while Clinton and her campaign didn’t say anything officially regarding the anti-Trump plots, they didn’t work very hard to squelch them either. Democrats don’t operate that way. As long as there’s a chance that something could go haywire and send the election their way, they’re all for it.

Of course it didn’t happen. Trump prevailed – almost completely as expected.

Ben Kamisar of The Hill reported, “Texas put Trump over the 270 electoral vote threshold at about 5:30 Eastern Time, putting him at 304 votes to Hillary Clinton's 163, according to news reports across the various states. That's a slight deviation from the results in the 46 states that have already cast their official Electoral College votes…

“Two Republicans defected in Texas--one chose Ohio Gov. John Kasich while the other chose former Texas Rep. Ron Paul.”

I’m sure there will be more on the defectors in the coming days including several Democrats who bailed on Hillary Clinton. One man even tried to vote for Bernie Sanders – Bernie bros unite!

But the great grand anti-Trump scheme ended up failing miserably. Everything’s in order for the next president and it’s going to be Donald J. Trump.

The Electoral College has done its duty, so what comes next?

Now that the Electoral College has performed as expected and America has a constitutionally elected president, it will come as a surprise to many that there still are a few formal steps to go in the electoral process.

Kyle Feldscher of the Washington Examiner reports, “After electors cast their votes for president and vice president, the results will be printed on a ‘certificate of vote,’ which is then mailed or delivered to the National Archives, according to the New York Times. The certificate is also sent to Congress.

“On Dec. 28, state and federal officials must have the certificates of vote, and on Jan. 6, Congress will meet in a joint session to count the electoral votes.

“Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate, will announce the results of the election at that time….”

Lawmakers can then challenge individual votes (to throw out faithless electors) or state votes. I’m guessing based on the Democrats’ past behavior they’ll conjure up some sort of circus-like public stunt to challenge state results.

To refrain from doing so would be out of character for the bunch. After all, making a public spectacle while advocating for their various “causes” is something liberals do regardless of the practicality or chances of success involved. Why do you think there were so many protests yesterday during the meetings of the Electoral College?

It’s the ultimate example of style over substance.

Trump’s formal election by the Electoral College won’t end the Democrats’ interests in Russian hacking either. Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner, “President Obama has ordered the Intelligence Community to finish a review of allegations of Russian election hacking by the time Obama leaves office on Jan. 20.

“Don't look for the report to settle anything. After years of what some Republicans view as administration obfuscation, manipulation and slow-walking on intelligence ranging from Benghazi to U.S. Central Command assessments of the Islamic State to the papers of Osama bin Laden, distrust of the Intelligence Community is so high in some GOP quarters on Capitol Hill that unless the IC delivers a document of uncharacteristic openness and transparency, the debate over Russia's activities and intentions will continue well into the presidency of Donald Trump.”

Once again, the debate over Russian hacking and its ultimate impact will be played out in perpetuity because the Democrats see it as one of the only ways they can influence public opinion when they’re out of power.

If they can’t stop Trump’s rollback of Obama’s policies in Washington they’ll try and undermine his popularity with the people. It isn’t exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created a republic with competing power centers – but then again, there weren’t any parties back then either.

York’s article also details how U.S. intelligence and political officials acknowledge that the Russians (and Chinese) are always trying to hack the American government and businesses. But up until recently, foreign cyber-espionage has never been a political issue.

Count on the Democrats to continue making it one in the years to come. Whenever Trump succeeds they’ll attempt to delegitimize his achievements by saying “he never should have been president in the first place.” Old story. Nothing new to see here.

Insiders are out or outsiders are in – which is it?

With each new person Donald Trump names for his upcoming administration it seems the media panic only intensifies. For weeks journalists and TV talkers have been wandering aimlessly with jaws agape at the audacity the president-elect has shown in tapping individuals with a variety of backgrounds and talents to be leaders during his presidency.

It’s almost as if these poor lost people stumbled across the specter of Hillary Clinton “hiking” in Chappaqua and can’t quite get over the fact that she failed.

If you listen to these folks it’s as if Armageddon is going to happen on or slightly after the 20th of next month.

Take for example this “objective” piece from the New York Times penned by Michael D. Shear, who wrote, “Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma state attorney general who was picked to lead the E.P.A., rejects the established science of human-caused climate change and has built his career on fighting environmental regulations. At the Education Department, Betsy DeVos wants to steer government money away from traditional public schools. Rick Perry was picked to head the Energy Department — unless he eliminates it, as he once promised.

“Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, the conservative Republican who was chosen as White House budget director, refused to back the 2011 deal to raise the federal debt limit and helped to bring the United States to the brink of default.”

Shear added Trump’s appointees “are among the most radical selections in recent history” and opened his piece by claiming they’re his “disrupters.” To be fair, Shear also categorizes some of Trump’s picks as “Dealmakers”, “Loyalists” and the “Establishment.”

If they could get away with it, I’m guessing the New York Times editorial board would suggest different labels for Trump’s choices, such as “Polluters,” “Racists” and “Corrupted Wall Street types seeking to enrich themselves.”

As if Shear’s article could get any better, he quotes former George W. Bush chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. as saying Trump’s people will be “challenging to the insiders.” It looks like the Republican establishment is observing with just as much awe as everyone else at what Trump apparently has the gall to do, namely appoint “disrupters” to his administration that seek to do exactly what he promised he would – “disrupt” Washington.

Or as it’s more commonly referred to these days, “drain the swamp.”

Is this “disruption” news to them or is the shock still so deep and heartfelt that they feign surprise over each new announcement? The media also can’t seem to get over Trump’s recently concluded “thank you” tour and his apparent thumb in the eye of all things establishment by actually delivering his speeches with Christmas trees as a backdrop.

Only a “disruptor” would dare try such a non-politically correct stunt, after all. Can you see a newly elected Hillary Clinton using Christmas symbols in her media appearances if she had won? I’m guessing her props would have been a rainbow colored Kwanzaa candelabra (which looks a lot like a Hanukkah menorah) surrounded by cross-dressing members of the LGBTQ community instead.

But despite all the hilarity that comes with each new media blast of paranoia, they can’t even seem to get their story straight. On the one hand Trump is portrayed as a “disruptor” and in the next breath he’s depicted as bending too far to the establishment side.

As an example of the latter, it’s being reported that incoming Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus is “flexing muscle” in Trump Tower.

Scott Wong of The Hill reports, “The consummate D.C. insider, Priebus has not just emerged as Trump's public liaison to a still-skeptical GOP establishment; the 44-year-old political operative has also become a trusted adviser to and staunch defender of the president-elect, even as he competes for power and influence with rivals like Stephen Bannon and Kellyanne Conway, who were with Trump from the beginning.

“Those who have been in the room with both Trump and Priebus say they wouldn’t describe Priebus as deferential to his new boss. In fact, Priebus appears at ease with Trump. He doesn’t hesitate to interject and offer his opinion, and the two often banter back and forth.”

Sure, Reince Priebus is running the show. That’s why establishment insiders – even those loyal to Trump – have largely been left out in the cold.

Many conservatives expressed outrage and fear when Priebus was called on to be Trump’s chief of staff. Radio host Michael Savage swears Trump is already corrupted by the establishment and almost can’t be trusted because of it.

These concerns are valid given Priebus’s history. But it also seems obvious that Trump is relying heavily on vice president-elect Mike Pence’s opinions when it comes to personnel. Priebus may be constantly at Trump’s side but Pence has to be credited for influencing Trump’s ultimate decisions.

In Trump’s world, the insiders are mostly out and the “outsiders” have worked their way in. And the swamp creature media is nervous because of it.

Share this