12/14/16 - Ref's Best Headlines

Judge: Effort to vote against will of Colorado voters is arrogant power-play

The latest on the ten electors who want a CIA briefing, which they know they can't get

Kanye West's Trump signed Time magazine with Trump as Person of the Year

NYT's Krugman Goes On The Warpath, Says Trump's Win Was 'Illegitimate'

Trump’s Threat Damps Companies’ Plans to Move U.S. Jobs Abroad

Trump has wrought a revolution

Priebus: We're Going to Do Press Briefings A Bit Differently

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau bans mention of Christmas at Canadian "holiday" party

Trump to tech leaders: You can call me directly, there's nobody like you

Federal Reserve expected to raise interest rates

Trump Picks Ronna Romney McDaniel for RNC Chair

12/09/16 - Photo was modified  

Michigan Supreme Court ends recount

According to, Only five the of the seven judges of the Michigan Supreme Court decided whether to take up Stein's appeal of the lower court decision. Two of the judges recused themselves from deciding whether to hear the case because they are on Trump's shortlist for potential Supreme Court appointments.

The two judges were Chief Justice Robert Young and Justice Joan Larsen. The court decided three to two, along party lines, not to take up the appeal because Jill Stein "failed to allege that she has been harmed or that her legal rights have been infringed in any way whatsoever."

Stein had also appealed to a federal court to keep the recount going, but the federal judge did not accept her argument. The Michigan Supreme Court was her last chance, so the court's refusal to hear the case means the recount is officially finished.

Follow me on Twitter 

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Stein needed the Michigan Supreme Court to save her recount





12/08/16 Photos were modified 1 | 2

Stein may not know it, but she ruined a Democrat strategy to hurt Trump

The Michigan recount showed us why Hillary didn't want it, now Dems can't run against Russian hackers and there's something fishy in Detroit

We knew Hillary didn't want these recounts, now we know why

Jill Stein admitted today that she does not have standing to sue in Michigan for a recount because she can't win. She did that because the court told her that she was not an aggrieved candidate according to Michigan law. Here's the Tweet:

She also admits in that Tweet that Hillary Clinton would have standing but does not want to sue. Remember all the breathless reporting when Hillary joined Stein in the Wisconsin recount?

Well Jill admitted that day that she didn't want Hillary involved because it wasn't about winning, it was about Jill raising money and her profile for the next run in 2020, and Hillary caught onto that. Check out Jill Stein is just promoting herself with the recounts.

Hillary never could win in Michigan or anywhere else

Some of the left actually thought that Hillary might win on a recount. They imagined a massive Russian hacking conspiracy being exposed, but now we know, and so does everyone else that there was no

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

hacking. The court ruled today that no evidence of hacking or any other fraud was present. I doubt the Democrats wanted this finding, but they all knew it was coming thanks to Jill Stein.

All along the Russian influence line has largely just been used to deflect the truth that the Wikileaks exposed. They never wanted to truly investigate Russian hacking of the vote becuase they knew it didn't happen. The Democrats just wanted to be able to complain about it for four years, and now Jill Stein has gone and ruined that strategy.

Jill's little recounts did expose something fishy, but it involved Democrats

While Jill didn't succeed in proving that hackers helped Trump win, she did expose that the people running the Detroit voting precincts are either incompetent or corrupt. In Detroit, 392 of the 662 precincts were potentially ineligible to be recounted because their poll books didn't match the voter machine printouts.

Detroit is ninety percent Democratic stronghold. If you had seen this kind of suspicious finding in rural Republican areas, no doubt the mainstream media would have considered that proof of hacking and the Democrats would run on that for four years.

Follow me on Twitter 

12/06/16 - Photos 1 | 2  

Alexander Hamilton would be appalled by Suprun's objections

Trump easily passes the test of Federalist 68, but Suprun's relied upon authorities do not

Texas Elector does not understand his role

Christopher Suprun has declared to the world in the New York Times that he will not vote for Trump despite his constituency voting for Trump. His argument for disenfranchising those who he represents is childishly simple and petty.

He does not understand Federalist 68 and actually appeals to the moral authority of those who advocate reckless globalization of the American economy and military, something that violates the very standards Federalist 68 erects. Suprun should resign because he does not understand his role.

A brief review of Federalist Paper No. 68

Hamilton is believed to have written Federalist No. 68, the paper often viewed as something akin to the legislative history of a portion of Article II Section I of the constitution, that part which lays out the electoral college. Federalist 68 essentially argues that the popular vote should play an important role in the selection of a president but an electoral college should have the final word so as to avoid the evils of corruption, foreign influence and lack of national consensus.

Hamilton thought that those with power to elect must have the opportunity to deliberate. He thought they must meet in their own states and not in a single national group so as to avoid heated decisions brought on by emotional incitement. He sought the avoidance of cabals and corruption, most notably from lurking and influential foreign powers.

Hamilton seemed to view the electors as trustees of their respective constituencies popular will except in circumstances of manifest corruption and foreign intrusion. He reasoned that the president should not be dependent on any established governmental group but the people themselves to avoid temptations toward corruption, and he saw the electors as a means of ensuring that outcome. He largely equated, therefore, electors and the popular vote with some narrow exceptions.

Where a majority cannot form, Hamilton wanted the House to elect the President as the only body capable delivering a majority consensus the people could accept. So he viewed the role of the elector as very limited with the moral authority to thwart the popular will only where corruption, foreign intrusion or lack of a national consensus clearly emerge, none of which are present in the case of Trump.

Hamilton did fear that a person who is skilled at dealing with only local issues of one state and gaining the popular support of only those in close proximity would not have have the ability to serve as president. This seems to hearken back to governing philosophy of those around Hamilton who formed the Tammany Society in 1786 and later Tammany Hall. Living in New York, Hamilton no doubt understood the deep tendency toward corruption of such individuals.

Mr. Suprun refers to the proscriptions of Federalist 68 as warnings against demagogy, electing someone who is unqualified and free of foreign influence. He broadly states that Trump fails to meet those standards without actually articulating them as I have, preferring to rely on some close approximation of the broad statement of the standards in the first sentence of this paragraph.

If anyone deserves the label here, Mr. Suprun is the demagogue. Alexander Hamilton likely would have been appalled at the simplistic application of his reasoning for the electoral college employed by Suprun.

After reading 68 closely one understands that it imagines three main evils, corruption, foreign influence and the election to president of one possessing qualifications insufficient to convince a considerable portion of the Union of his ability to succeed in that office, someone like a Tammany Hall boss.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Suprun glosses over the specifics of Federalist 68, relying on vague notions of what is warned of so that he can recite his specific objections to Trump without exposing their superficiality and outright error. Suprun cites objections seemingly lifted from the OccupyDemocrats website. His editorial is laughable when juxtaposing its intended grandiosity with its evident nothingness.

Trump's inability to unite America prior to taking the oath is the key objection

Suprun cites Trump's inability to unite America as his key objection to Trump. He cites his Tweet about SNL and claims Trump stokes fears. This violates Suprun's concept of the US as a shining city on a hill.

He then notes that Federalist 68 gives electors the task of determining if candidates are qualified, apparently in the broadest sense of the word with no guidance as to what renders one qualified. He employs his own subjective standard, stating that a lack of foreign policy experience and the requisite demeanor of a president disqualify Trump. Neither standard comes from 68. He notes the letter written by fifty globalist oriented Republicans stating that he would be a "dangerous president," ignoring the fact that these were almost all Bush loyalists.

Faithless elector Suprun ignores the fact that both Cheney and Rumsfeld support Trump, as well as fairly significant number of former NeverTrumpers. None other than Mitt Romney has praised the transition and stated that he can see Trump as the man to lead our nation into a brighter future. Also, many of the signers of that letter advocated and executed our invasion of Iraq and the mess following.

Would Hamilton have heralded the judgment of such strong advocates for decades long forays into deeply questionable foreign interventions? Of course not. Hamilton would have likely viewed advocates for such globalization with suspicion and potentially as unworthy of an elector's vote under Federalist 68, yet Suprun cites them in support. Nonsense.

Last Suprun alleges that Trump's business dealings in foreign nations implicitly renders him in violation of the proscription against presidents receiving foreign payments. He ignores the fact that Trump has announced plans to pass all of his business interests to his children.

Ultimately Suprun's objections are trifling and transparently motivated by politics. He is a Bushy, obviously, and like those he cites in his letter is just unable to accept Trump who is the personification of a firm rejection of Bushism. Bush was a mega-globalist. Federalist 68 stands in opposition to the kind of corrupt globalism we have seen, where multinational corporations and even foreign governments in the case of Hillary Clinton, have direct impact on our politics.

Trump stands in opposition to this very thing, advocating a strong nationalism, something Hamilton would have embraced. Trump passes the test in 68 because he strongly opposes corruption, unrestrained globalization and has clearly united a considerable portion of the nation behind him sufficient to succeed nationally.

Trump is a rejection of corrupt establishment politics, the kind politics Boss Tweed was famous for. Trump is not the danger the electors were established to avoid. If anything, he's the opposite.

Suprun's simplistic moralization based on preposterously vague electoral standards equates to the temper-tantrum of a Bushy. Because Suprun so fundamentally misses the mark in the fulfillment of his duties, he should resign and let someone who does not allow his or her political sentimentalities to govern his current judgment do the job.

Like me on Facebook!

Car carrying Fidel Castro's remains broke down


Yes, this actually happened. I guess all Cubans have equally worthless cars! Photo 1 | 2

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.




Green party drops Pennsylvania recount suit

The Green party wanted to pursue the lawsuit, but they ran out of money Photo was modified

According to the AP, they have dropped the case

The Associated Press reported Saturday evening that the Green Party is dropping its court case aimed at forcing a recount of Pennsylvania's statewide presidential vote.

The Green Party wanted to investigate whether Pennsylvania's voting machines had been hacked.

The AP also reported that the Green Party indicated that it could not raise the $1 million bond required by the court that was due on Monday. There was no real danger of overturning the Pennsylvania result.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

The Pennsylvania recount effort was not about overturning result




Amidst partisan firestorm, Megyn is going to have to settle for less

Megyn has reportedly lost a potentially rich deal at ABC (LA Times), left only with CNN, a network many of her current fans simply won't watch Photo was modified

Kelly essentially told reporters to butt out, leaves audience hanging

DrudgeReport reported Thursday that Megyn was considering an exit

According to Drudge, CNN's President Jeff Zucker is pursuing her and she might agree to join CNN. The report indicates that Zucker would promote her across all Time-Warner platforms and she may have the chance to compete directly with Bill O'Reilly.

Also according to DrudgeReport, she is "despised" by her peers at Fox News and it has only worsened since the release of her book. The LA Times reported that Bill O'Reilly has said that her book harmed the Fox News Channel by unnecessarily bringing up the Roger Ailes sexual harassment case.

Megyn Kelly's ratings are not keeping pace with her counterparts

In recent weeks, Megyn Kelly's ratings have suffered. She has finished as badly as fifth place on Fox News, trailing Hannity, O'Reilly, Special Report and the Five.

Tucker Carlson's new show has also debuted to phenomenal ratings at 7 o'clock. It is unclear whether Kelly might be feeling the heat due to her various counterparts' success. With her 9 o'clock slot, she has every reason to have high ratings because of O'Reilly's big lead in. She has also been billed as the future of the network and the networks "biggest star." Presumably the network's biggest star should not finish fifth place in the ratings.

Kelly may have been auditioning for a jump for some time

Kelly has been antagonizing Trump for over a year and a half and it's plausible to hypothesize that she calculated that as part of her move. Perhaps she reasoned that she would become a hero to the left for railing against Trump and leverage that into a prime spot at a liberal network (any network other than FNC).

Recently she was criticized for "auditioning" for other jobs after she accused Trump of being a "sexual predator" in an apparent attempt to create a clash with Newt Gingrich, an iconoclast toward the media. Vanity Fair described the conflict this way, "She positively eviscerated Newt Gingrich last month when he told her she was 'fascinated by sex' for covering the sexual-assault allegations made against Trump."

Kelly is not drawing competitive offers after Drudge's report

The LA Times is also reporting that Megyn is considering her options. She is currently making $15 million a year and that is seemingly not enough to keep her happy at FNC. Unfortunately, according tot he LA Times, nobody out there is willing to pay that amount.

CNN does not pay that much for on-air talent and NBC or MSNBC do not seem to be interested. The LA Times has also reported that ABC may have been interested in putting her on Good Morning

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

America, but has lost interest since the report of her search surfaced on the DrudgeReport.

There might be no worse time for Kelly to move to CNN

CNN has received enormous criticism for its extraordinarily unfair coverage of the presidential campaign, In a country where about half the people voted for Trump, CNN treated Trump like a monstrous racist deserving of nothing but condemnation. The criticism has had its impact on CNN as it has repeatedly finished behind MSNBC in ratings.

CNN's coverage frequently featured harsh condemnations of Trump and his defenders, most notably Van Jones attacking Trump supporters calling his election the result of a "whitelash." Trump reportedly dressed down CNN President Jeff Zucker over the harsh coverage in the election.

There is no sign of CNN learning how to cover news objectively in this post-Obama environment. CNN's most recent foray into extreme bias featured a CNN producer joking about the newly elected incoming president crashing and a CNN reporter laughing at the suggestion. One should assume that Kelly would lose a big chunk of her more conservative audience if she jumps to CNN. Bad for her. Bad for CNN. Bad for the deal. But can she stay at Fox?

Has Kelly already burned her bridge at Fox and with once loyal fans?

As mentioned previously in this article, Kelly's ratings have suffered, likely as a result of her very public battle with Trump and other conservatives. With her interest in leaving the network now being widely reported, and the fact that taking less money is apparently not a deal breaker, it would be hard to fault anyone who has until now remained loyal to her at Fox for abandoning her.

Rupert Murdoch has said he doesn't want her to leave, but he also went public with a statement that seemed like a take it or leave it ultimatum. He said, "we have a deep bench of talent, many of whom would give their right arm for her spot." Since that statement, Tucker Carlson has demonstrated that Megyn may not be that special by debuting with historic ratings, the hour up 40% from November last year.

Tucker has a markedly different take on the issues than Kelly. With Kelly faltering and Hannity and Tucker riding high, Rupert's son James Murdoch may be doubting his previous conclusion that she is a big part of the channel's future.

Both of the Murdoch sons are fairly liberal, but the Carlson hire came after all this started and is proving yet again that conservatism sells. Perhaps they are signaling that they took Levin's warning to heart. If the Murdoch boys stick with her, on the other hand, conservative Kelly critic Mark Levin has alleged that the future of Fox News will be in peril as the liberal Murdoch sons "are slowly but surely ruining that network."



Evidence of potentially widespread voter fraud emerges in Nevada

Edward Snowden and Waylon Jennings are both registered to vote in Nevada's 15th district Photos were modified 1 | 2

Nevada is one of the only states where Hillary over performed her polls

The real reason recounts were requested in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is that Hillary polled better in those states than she actually performed on election day. We know now that Hillary polled better almost everywhere than she actually performed because polling systemically overestimated Democratic turnout.

In at least one state, however, she actually polled worse than she performed on election day. Considering that there was a nationwide undercount of Trump's support in polling. a pattern repeated in the states, it is unusual that Hillary would over perform her polls in any jurisdiction. But she did just that in Nevada.

My poll average showed Hillary barely leading in Nevada, by only 0.1%, in the final average of Nevada polls. She ended up winning by a larger margin than that.

I wrote two days before the election that something unusual seemed to be occurring in Nevada based on a sudden surge of early vote on the last day of early voting. It seems now that much of that vote may have been fraudulent.

Additional potential evidence for voter fraud in Nevada

As outlined in an interview with Newsmax, the campaign of Stan Vaughan, a Republican Assembly Candidate for Nevada District 15, canvased his district by knocking doors. When an active voter on the list was not at the house when his campaign knocked on a door, his campaign would send a piece of mail via USPS to the address.

9,200 of the pieces of mail that his campaign sent were returned to the campaign by the Post Office. According to the USPS, mail may be deemed undeliverable for a several reasons, specifically lack of postage, incomplete, illegible or incorrect address, addressee is not at the address, mail goes unclaimed, mail was refused or the minimum criteria for mailability is not met.

In the event of renumbering of houses, renaming of streets, conversion from a rural to city-style address, or consolidation of mail routes or post offices, mail will be redirected to the correct new address. People who move will have their mail forwarded for six months.

We know, therefore, that mail that is returned is usually because of postage problems, the address



Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Then Democratic Senate candidate Masto encouraged people to vote after polls had officially closed

is incomplete somehow or the person simply does not reside at the address. Assuming that the majority of the mailings Mr. Vaughan sent were returned due to the addressee not residing at the address with no forwarding address, it is safe to conclude that this represents potential evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Mr. Vaughan then randomly selected 200 of the 9200 returned mailings to compare to the list of people who actually voted. He discovered that 185 of those 200 people in fact voted in this most recent election.

I contacted Mr. Vaughan regarding the specific manner in which the mailings were returned. If he comments, I will update this article to reflect that. He did, however, already give some indication of the reasons for the returned mailings in his interview with Newsmaxtv.

From within that group of 200, Mr. Vaughan said that one reason for the returned mail was the person had a forwarding address located out of state, indicating that a person who no longer resides in Nevada voted in the state. He also indicated the people listed as deceased both had an address on the active voter list and actually voted. People whose mailings were marked "Attempted, not known," also voted. Last, it was so bad that over one hundred people who potentially voted were registered at an address that is a vacant lot with no mail receptacle.

Mr. Vaughan also noted that the daily cumulative voting numbers showed that through November 2nd, 10,000 people had early voted. On November 4th, a total of 12,466 people had voted. As of Nov. 2nd, only 3600 Democrats had voted. On Nov. 4th 6800 Democrats had voted. So 3200 Democrats voted between Nov. 2nd and Nov. 4th, but the total number of voters only increased by 2466. This is an impossibility.

Mr. Vaughan identified as many as 15,000 fraudulent votes in his district. His district only represents one of forty-two voting districts in the state. Considering that Trump only lost by 28,000 votes and Hilliary over performed her polling in the state, it seems that voter fraud very well may have cost him the state.

This article will be updated as more information comes to light.


Drudge: Megyn Kelly may leave Fox News


On Thursday morning DrudgeReport indicated that Kelly may leave FNC Photo was modified

DrudgeReport is exclusively reporting that Kelly my leave FNC

According to Drudge, CNN's President Jeff Zucker is pursuing her and she might agree to join CNN. The report indicates that Zucker would promote her across all Time-Warner platforms and she may have the chance to compete directly with Bill O'Reilly.

Also according to DrudgeReport, she is "despised" by her peers at Fox News and it has only worsened since the release of her book.

Megyn Kelly's ratings are not keeping pace with her counterparts

In recent weeks, Megyn Kelly's ratings have suffered. She has finished as badly as fifth place on Fox News, trailing Hannity, O'Reilly, Special Report and the Five.

Tucker Carlson's new show has also debuted to phenomenal ratings at 7 o'clock. It is unclear whether Kelly might be feeling the heat due to her various counterparts' success. With her 9 o'clock slot, she has every reason to have high ratings because of O'Reilly's big lead in.

She has also been billed as the future of the network and the networks "biggest star." Presumably the network's biggest star should not finish fifth place in the ratings.


Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Kelly addressed the question of her future on Twitter, but gave no specifics. Clearly negotiating.


Kelly interviewing Carrier employees last night




These guys all have big wins in Indiana

From saving jobs, important elections and national championships, these guys do well in the Hoosier state Photos 1 | 2

Trump's big primary win in Indiana secured the nomination for Trump

Trump saved irreplaceable Indiana jobs

According to the New York Times quoting Scott Paul, the president of Alliance for American Manufacturing, these jobs are "irreplaceable" for people who do not have college degrees as a means of fulfilling the American dream. These particular jobs were also filled by a very diverse workforce, about half African-American and half white.

The jobs pay well too, over $20 an hour including benefits for employees with a high-school education, which translates to $40,000 a year at full-time hours. When considering that one thousand jobs were saved, that translates to $40 million dollars in annual wages and probably another $10 million in benefits staying in the United States as a result of the deal.

Governor Mike Pence was able to offer state tax incentives to help make the deal. More details will emerge about the deal in coming days. Both Trump and Pence will be at an announcement ceremony tomorrow in Indiana.

Obama gets egg his face, again

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.


Employees react to the Carrier deal





Follow me on Twitter



Trump's political formula is brilliant, bold and effective

Trump understands that the left is driven by emotion Photos 1

Trump's opposition to flag burning only helps him, hurts Democrats

Justice Scalia joined with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court holding that flag burning represents protected speech, but he also said that if he were king he would ban flag burning. So Scalia essentially highlighted the supremacy of the rule of law while acknowledging his bias against flag burning.

Donald Trump seems to have played some version of this same game. Trump tweeted that flag burning should result in one year in jail or loss of citizenship. One can imagine, however, Trump saying in his next 60 Minutes interview that while he favors such sanctions for the act, he accepts the holding of the Court and defers to the rule of law.

It seems that Trump has chosen an area of controversy in which he has located a credible escape hatch, namely, the Scalia explanation for opposing flag burning. This escape hatch allows Trump to boldly state his opposition to flag burning, a position a majority of Americans share, while at the same time acknowledging his inability to impose such sanctions.

The Washington Post looked at this in an article titled, Donald Trump's basic position on flag-burning isn't really all that controversial. The author pointed out that polling from a decade ago, the most recent polling, showed a majority thought flag burning should be illegal. While they favored a legal ban, a majority opposed the method of a constitutional amendment to ban the practice. The author reasoned that there is little reason to assume public opinion has changed substantially.

It is a good bet that a majority still holds the opinion that the practice should be illegal but would oppose a constitutional amendment banning it. I surmise that many people view a constitutional amendment as warranted in only the most serious matters and only on rare occasions, almost never, and this issue does not arise to such status. I also surmise that while the American public would oppose a constitutional amendment it may in fact support the Court reversing its decision on this question, rendering such bans permissible by legislatures.

Either way, Trump is in a golden position. He gets to oppose the extraordinarily unpopular act of burning an American flag in stark terms, thereby garnering good will with a majority of Americans, while having no legal ability to do anything about it short of picking Supreme Court Justices who might reverse the Court's holding on the question. President-Elect Trump has already identified the pool of twenty-one candidates he will select from for the Court, so that hard part is done.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Scalia said if he were king, he would ban flag burning, but he knows he's not king

The President-Elect, therefore, can reap the political reward of strongly advocating a majority position while his opposition protests his statement by doing what many Americans truly hate to see, burning the American flag. Elite opinion opposes Trump, so a normal politician might worry about offending the New York Times and other elite opinion institutions, but his entire candidacy represented a rejection of that very establishment, so he is free to utilize this political strategy.

Trump's opponents look terrible

People will remember these images of anger and rage because images stay with us better than words. Trump's tweet will not be remembered like these images of people burning flags will be, because it was in the written word, never spoken by him. To those who are not strong on this issue one way or the other, Trump will come out looking much better than his opposition. This is political jiu jitsu at its best.


Romney's statement after dinner with President-Elect Trump Tuesday night

Romney says he has "increasing hope that President-Elect Trump is the very man who can lead us to that better future."


BREAKING: After Stein appeal, Judge orders no hand-recount in Wisconsin

The recount is dying for Stein. Now she should stop raising money. Photos 1 | 2

At 8:45 PM CST, according to the AP and, Jill Stein failed to show that the machine recount was brought into question by any mistakes or irregularities.

Stein's lawyers had asserted that the most effective way to assess if a cyberattack had occured was through a hand recount. The judge disagreed.

Stein had originally asserted that Wisconsin's voting machines had been hacked, but had no evidence to back that up.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Like us on Facebook.

Stein continues to allege possibility of hacks without evidence


Trump's flag desecration Tweet reflects a Clinton proposal

Trump tweeted a flag burning law that Hillary Clinton proposed in 2005 and the left savaged him, many who supported Hillary Clinton in the election

Was Trump just making a point about leftist media and NeverTrumpers?

The left went nuts about Trump's tweet, but never mentioned the fact that Hillary Clinton had proposed this very thing in 2005. All of the people below supported Hillary Clinton explicitly or at least would have preferred that Hillary be elected over Trump.

David Frum, a NeverTrumper, seemed to support Hilary in the election. But when Trump repeats her proposal, he lashes out . . .

Like our website? Like us on Facebook.

Hillary Clinton proposed a $100,000 fine and a one-year jail term for burning the flag


There is some old footage of Hillary talking about the bill in this liberal blog (Some bad language)

Trump's Tweet discussed

Follow me on Twitter 


It looks like President-Elect Trump has found the man to replace Obamacare

What has Congressman Price proposed to replace Obamacare? Image

Price is the likely HHS secretary pick

According to the New York Times, citing a transition team official, President-Elect Trump has tapped Congressman Price to head the Health and Human Services Department. He will control a $1 trillion budget and administer health programs that cover over 100 million citizens.

Congressman Tom Price is a medical doctor who worked in private practice as an orthopedic surgeon and spent some time teaching at the Emory University School of Medicine. He attended the University of Michigan to receive his medical degree.

What has Congressman Price proposed to replace Obamacare?

Congressman Price has proposed replacing Obamacare with a plan intended to put patients and doctors in charge by prioritizing innovation, accessibility and affordability.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

He has proposed doing this by utilizing individual health pools and expanded health savings accounts. He has also proposed tax credits for the purchase of health insurance and reforms aimed at stemming lawsuit abuse directed at medical professionals.

This approach puts Congressman Price right in line with the mainstream Republican approach of looking for private sector solutions whenever possible while relying on government when necessary, such as in the implementation of high risk pools.


Winning the electoral college with 306 votes is a popular vote win

The electoral college cools the passions of current popular will by spreading popular power over time. History has shown us why this is a better system. FRENCH REVOLUTION- Death of the Princess De Lamballe, by Leon Maxime Favre

Trump won a big popular vote victory as measured by House seats

To win 306 electoral votes, a candidate must win jurisdictions that govern a majority of the population of the United States. Electoral votes are allocated in part based on population and Trump won a majority of those electoral votes. Trump did not win because of electoral votes that are allocated in proportion to Senate seats which are not popularly allocated. He won a majority of electors based on allocation by House seats, which is a popular vote win.

If we subtract the electoral votes allocated by Senate seats, Trump won 246 electoral votes to Clnton's 192 electoral votes. This includes only electoral votes allocated by popular vote.

The sustained popular will, not the latest popular vote, governs presidential elections in America

Our founders designed a complicated system of government that spreads out power as much as possible. Not only is power spread throughout different branches of government, but power is spread over time as well.

Popular will is not determined in a single election in our system. The elected branches of government are elected on a staggered schedule so that no one wave of populist will in one election can sweep a party into power. Rather, the popular will is expressed every two years in the House, every four years for the president and every six years for the Senate. To truly take dominant power a party must perform well in several successive elections.

But even then we have a federal judiciary that is appointed for life. So to gain dominance over the judiciary a party may have to perform well in as many as five or six federal elections over a period of ten to twelve years. The senate is only elected every six years and the president every four, so to really dominate in the judicial selection process a party needs to dominate for quite a long time.

Does that mean that the federal judiciary is not an expression of popular will? Not really, it's just an expression of popular will in the past, a popular will sustained over time.

In the same way, the presidential election we hold every four years is really the result of the expression of both current and past popular will extending as far back as eight years. The census takes place every ten years. The census determines how many congressional representatives each state has, which in turn determines how many electoral votes a state has. You might ask, but isn't the census just a straightforward headcount? How could that be political?

The census is very political. The political part comes in when the Census Bureau attempts to count people who have traditionally been hard to count, usually racial and ethnic minorities, poor people and immigrants, both legal and illegal. Yes, illegal immigrants count for the census. The primary controversy with regard to the census centers around statistical sampling. The Census Bureau did not use it in 2010 but it has been used in the past.

Essentially methods would be used to estimate how many people are not being counted, including racial and ethnic minorities, the poor and legal and illegal immigrants. This approach would likely give more congressional seats to California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois, and other states where illegal immigrants tend to gravitate. As you can see, it has the potential to influence the presidential election for this reason.

  Don't want to miss the latest in politics from a fair perspective? Like our Facebook page.


Beyond the census, the presidential election is also an expression of the popular will as expressed in state elections for as many as eight years prior to the actual election. State legislatures and other organs of state government actually draw the new congressional district lines once the Census is completed.

How these lines are drawn can influence which party is more likely to win each district. Who controls congress can potentially influence who wins the presidency in the case that no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. The party that controls congress also controls funding for the Census Bureau, so that probably has an impact on how the Census is conducted.


Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.


So you can see that each presidential election is kind of like the ultimate expression of a series of recent elections, begining every ten years when the Census is taken. One reason this presidential election was signficant is that the 45th president, Donald Trump, will be in power when the 2020 Census is taken.


Eliminating the electoral college would favor non-diligent voters

The presidential election involves the least amount of effort to learn about and engage in on the part of the voter. There are only a few candidates and everyone in popular culture comes out for this election one way or the other. Every potential voter, as a result, knows about this election and seems to have an opinion on it. The presidential election will force itself upon the most disinterested person, often causing him or her to form opinions that he or she would never form on a less covered and consequential race.

Celebrities campaign against Trump and target Democrat voters


The Democrats in particular have the ability to mobilize their voters in the urban areas much more so in presidential years because of this in-your-face quality of presidential elections. Turnout for presidential elections is much higher than non-presidential year congressional elections. So the Democrats, as a result, would love it if the popular will as expressed in presidential years alone influenced who actually becomes president.

But presidential year popular vote is just one half of the popular vote equation in our system. Half of all federal elections for congress take place in non-presidenital years and vice versa. Because non-presidential year federal elections do not generate as much popular interest from celebrities and in other ways, the electorate in non-presidential years looks very different than presidential year electorates. People who are more diligent about voting, who are also much more likely to be informed, show up to vote in these non-presidential years. As demonstrated in the previous section, non-presidential year elections influence who wins the presidency.

This fact has a calming and cooling influence over our presidential elections. Rather than leaving the selection of our chief executive up to an excited populace raging in a presidential year, we spread out the power not only to electors within states but to the popular will as expressed in previous non-presidential elections when the diligent voter dominates. It puts more power in the hands of those who dedicate themselves to voting each and every election, people who are generally more informed. This is a very good thing for stability and the rule of law.

The House of Representatives defends current popular will

We must remember also that the popular vote already does dominate our system of government even when a president who does not win the most recent popular vote is elected. We do not have a king, but the people are sovereign. The House of Representatives is the most direct expression of that popular sovereign will, and the House alone has power to initiate all revenue bills, impeach federal officials including a president, and elect the president if no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. The House can always check the president.

The left's extraordinary hypocrisy

Most of the what the left considers social progress in our nation has resulted not from popular will, but by imposition of a minority view by an unelected and virtually unaccountable panel of nine judges in the form of the Supreme Court. The integration of schools, the creation of a privacy right that supports abortion and same-sex marriage all came from the least democratic branch of our government.

Short of full-scale revolution, the electoral college is here to stay

All of the complaining about the electoral college rings hollow. The only way to change the electoral college is through a constitutional amendment and that's not going to happen when it benefits the majority of states. The founders baked this into the constitution in such a way that it's not going to change. So anyone arguing for it seems to be arguing for revolution, because that's the only way the electoral college will ever go away.


Jill Stein is just promoting herself with the recounts

Stein knows Hillary can't win. The recounts are designed to stoke anger and Stein hopes to gain followers.Some modifications made to photo

Some have speculated that Jill Stein is doing Hillary's work, but that's unlikely

If Jill Stein was doing Hillary's work, it's unlikely that Stein would be insulting her as a hypocrite, phony and a corporatist sellout on Twitter. But she has insulted HIllary and the Democrats plenty on Twitter tonight.

Stein also attacked the Democrats tonight

The Stein Scheme: Get in front of an angry mob and become their hero

It looks like Stein is trying to capitalize on the anger of Hillary supporters by calling for a recount, which Hillary was not going to do on her own, and harnessing the anger of disappointed Democrats for her own purposes. It's an obvious opportunistic play on the part of Stein.


Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

Clinton would not call for a recount on her own because there is no chance of overturning the results of the election. Stein knew this and simply did what Clinton would not do because Stein has nothing to lose. She already caters to radicals and is not viewed as a serious candidate, so she risks nothing by calling for pointless recounts.

The upside: she galvanizes the radical left behind her and likely garners some more support in four years. The downside: the media and Democrats continue to view her as a marginal candidate, which they already do, so its nothing new and is an acceptable loss.

Stein did not expect, however, that the remnants of the Clinton campaign would embrace her recount effort. It is not aimed at winning and everybody knows it so why would Clinton do it? Clinton's embrace of this recount undermines Stein's attempt to represent the hero of the angry left.

Clinton wants to deprive Stein of that street cred because if Stein becomes another Ralph Nader, a third-party candidate who can get real votes, it threatens the Democrats. So Clinton's people are going to join Stein in this effort to share in the credit for irritating Trump, which is what the angry left wants right now. They are just doing it to blunt Stein's ability to peel away votes from Democrats. It's not about 2016. It's about 2020.

Stein responds to Trump's almost certainly accurate claim that she is just promoting herself

Finally, Stein makes clear that she is truly a radical lunatic by saluting Castro

Don't want to miss the latest in politics from a fair perspective? Like our Facebook page.

What next?

A self-described social justice warrior who executed children and starved political opponents to deathSome modifications made to photo

Castro murdured and imprisoned in the name of social justice

Fidel Castro was a true believer in Marxist communism. He ordered seven pints of blood to be extracted from those who were sentenced to execution for imaginary crimes against the state. Subsequently that blood was sent to the communists in Vietnam to support their fight against the "capitalist pigs".

Early in the communist revolution, thousands were summarily executed and tortured brutally. Thousands of Cubans were shot by firing squads including many children.

In the years following Castro allowed people to suffer and starve in his political prisons. Prisoners,

Cubans react to the death of Castro

 Trump on Cuba


Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

including teenagers, were sometimes beaten to death by prison guards and denied medical attention, which also led to deaths.

Many have also died attempting to flee the monstrous communist regime, including many children. In 1971, for example, the Cuban guard rammed a boat full of people attempting to flee resulting in the deaths of three children. In 1994 twelve children ranging in age from six months to eleven years died when the Cuban Coast Guard sank their vessel.

Many have died attempting to reach freedom. The crisis continues today.

Obama's normalization of relations with Cuba

The Obama White House has changed course in Cuba, beginning a process of normalization of relations with them. The rationale is that our approach hasn't worked because other governments do not embargo Cuba, thereby undermining our embargo. The White House claims to want to promote democracy in Cuba, yet they have not made any real demands on the regime to enforce this.

The White House opened our embassy back up in Cuba despite no changes on the part of the regime. The Obama White House argues that it is better to encourage and support reform than to isolate the nation, pushing it to fail. Opponents of their approach, led by Senator Marco Rubio, argue that Obama's approach is naive as to how the world works and will lead to a tightened grip to power by the regime for decades into the future.

Trump promises to reverse Obama's concessions

President-Elect Trump has vowed to reverse Obama's concessions to the regime. Perhaps two events have happened in the last two and a half weeks, Trump's election and the death of Fidel Castro, that will lead to the liberation of our long-suffering Cuban friends to the south.

Don't want to miss the latest in politics from a fair perspective? Like our Facebook page.

Michigan vote certified, no recount has ever overturned a lead this size

If elections fall within 2000 votes in Michigan, an automatic recount is triggeredSome modifications made to photo

Trump leads in Michigan by more than Hillary led in New Hampshire

Trump has defeated Hillary Clinton for the presidency in the state of Michigan by a margin of 10,704 votes according to the Michigan Secretary of State. Despite the certification, no national television network has yet projected Trump the winner of Michigan's sixteen electoral votes. This is extremely unusual even in races decided by 0.23% of the vote.

In fact, the state of New Hampshire was called for Clinton on November 11th by CNN when Clinton held a 0.2% lead, ahead by only 1,437 votes. Instead of projecting Trump the winner of Michigan two weeks after the election when the vote has been certified, the networks refuse to project Trump the winner, instead preferring to trumpet calls for a recount in the state based on phantom vote hacking, something that is virtually impossible in Michigan because it uses all paper ballots.


But it is true that the exit polls showed Hillary tied in Michigan, so should that make us think a recount is warranted? Not at all because the exit polls gave Hillary better numbers than she actually received in almost every state. Only in California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Texas did Clinton do better than the exit polls predicted.

These exit polls failed miserably. They routinely understated Trump's level of support by large margins. The exit polls missed Trump's number by 11 in New Jersey, 10.7 in Missouri, 9.6 in Utah, 8.4 in Ohio, 8.2 in Maine, 8.2 in South Carolina, 5.9 in North Carolina and the list goes on. Of the twenty-eight state exit polls reported here, Trump's vote was understated by an average of 3.6%.

What one might find quite interesting, however, one state where the exit polls almost nailed the final result, which only happened in about six states, was Michigan. The exit polls predicted a tie and Trump won by 0.23%. So the exit polls do not provide a good argument for a recount.

There is also the concern about vote hacking. Fortunately for democracy, the likelihood of vote hacking making a difference in Michigan is virtually zero. All ballots in Michigan are paper ballots, so vote hacking of electronic machines seems unlikely. While some imagine fanciful scenarios whereby the machines that count the paper ballots are hacked, the Michigan elections director doubts that vote-hacking is a legitimate concern.

Follow me on Twitter

Like our coverage? Get it every day! Like our Facebook page.

Comparing Trump's Michigan lead to other margins that actually justified a recount

How does a lead of 0.23% and 10,704 votes stack up in comparison with past recounts. In a word, the lead looks insurmountable. Let's look at five recounts, some of which overturned the result and some that didn't.

There have been five notable recounts in the last twenty years. In the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial race the Republican was ahead by 261 votes initially, but after two recounts ended up losing by 129 votes. There were about 2.8 million votes cast total and the initial margin separating the two was 0.009% of the vote.

In the 2006 Vermont Auditor's race, the initial count showed the Republican up by 137 votes. After the recount the Democrat took a 102 vote lead. There were 250,609 total votes case and the initial vote margin was 0.05% of the vote.

In 2006 in Florida's 13th congressional district, the Republican led by 350 votes initially and held the lead after a recount. There 238,249 votes cast and the initial vote margin was 0.14% of the vote.

In the 2008 Minnesota US Senate election, Al Franken trailed Norm Coleman by 215 votes. After the recount Franken took a 225 vote lead. There were 2.9 million votes cast and the initial vote margin was 0.008% of the vote.

Last, who can forget the presidential election of 2000 in Florida. The state would determine who won the presidency. After all votes were counted, including some military votes a few days after the election, Bush led by 930 votes. His lead would dwindle to 537 votes. The total votes cast was 6 million and the initial margin was 0.016% of the total vote.

In Michigan in 2016, the initial vote margin is 10,704 votes cast. There were a total of 4.8 million votes, so the initial margin is 0.23%.


So when comparing the lead Trump holds in Michigan to other statewide elections where recounts were called for, Trump looks safe. In every case of a recount on a statewide level the vote margins are in the hundreds, not the thousands. A vote lead of 10,704 votes is a very large lead to overcome in a recount. In fact, it looks like an impossible mission.

Like the facts presented clearly and fairly? Like us.