The entitlement curse
December 17, 2016
power requires a process. These days, the process starts with
denying your opponent, by any means necessary, a path to the
same power you seek, especially if your opponent happens to be a
Republican and you are a Democrat.
The worse case is if
the opponent is Donald Trump, then the scrimmage begins.
Forgetting that they chose a very heavily flawed candidate, in
the person of Hillary, Democrats are in grief and denial
about the loss of the 2016 presidential race which Trump has
Subsequently, they have
resorted to the same chicanery, the same twist and turns of the
most bizarre reasoning that brought her to
the front row in the primaries.
after the defeat, the same reasoning is being used to thwart
Trump at the electoral college.
How else could Hillary or any one in her group
go from a demand for the popular vote to blaming Russia
for her loss? Then, swing on to a last ditch effort to
induce electors by threat to decide the election on the basis of conscience?
That's how bizarre the Democrat response to defeat in 2016 is. And will continue
to be, even after President-elect Trump is
sworn into office on January 20, 2017.
Thinking back, you could have
seen it happening; that Democrats (mostly liberals) think they
are the smart set, therefore,
are entitled to rule the
rest of us . No way they can accept defeat
under this thought!
accepting defeat with grace is out. What you see in the
streets of America is the modern Democrat's reaction to defeat. Elections for them are now
long drawn out wars.
Florida 2000 was the landmark.
It is a short two days before the formal acceptance of
President Elect Trump by the 306 delegates from the states he won.
won a lot of counties too.
"Out of 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of
them. Clinton won 57." And, out of the ten largest states,
Trump won seven and Clinton three. The heavy population centers
are in the large states.
Just victories in two
states alone (New York and California) gave Clinton a huge
votes. Take away California and she would have lost the
popular vote too!
presidential elections are constitutionally decided by electors
from the states. So, having failed at this stage, all hell has broken loose.
Democrats are on the warpath, threatening to damage the
constitutional obligation of the electors.
Getting electors to defect wasn't the rule understood before
the election, but who is giving her tacit
approval for the new plan? Hillary, together with key Democrats and
major liberal media outlets that are in cahoots to get rid of Trump.
You note from this point that Hillary's late concession speech
lacked sincerity. So heavily invested in her own coronation
before the speech, she forgot to craft the excuses
she has on show now.
Her act now is without grace.
Her reaction to defeat is similar to that of the defeated
President Yahya Jammeh of Gambia; except hers is more subtle and
devious in its machinations.
But who would
dare ask her to do something different? Not even President
Obama or anybody from her side.
For, that's the
Democrats party's way after losing elections. Same unalloyed "truths,"
are uttered, like we heard from Hillary in the FBI
investigations of her home server and the email scandals.
now is she won the popular vote, therefore deserves to be the
As said, it is not a constitutional requirement
to win the popular vote in order to be the president. But
the claim is devious enough to put doubts in the minds of a
gullible public so as to raise questions about the soundness of
Trump's victory over her.
And indeed, the unquestioned votes, like
those counted in California, add reason enough for those who are ignorant of the constitutional
requirement, or too
partisan to care, to claim victory for Hillary.
This subterfuge, she hopes, is good
enough to reawake her chances..
Fortunately, the fervor
for the popular vote claim fizzled but it was soon replaced by
another dodge from an unlikely corner.
Jill Stein, the Green
Party nominee, who had no chance for gains requested recounts in three critical Democrat
leaning states that Trump had won. Stein had about 1% of
the total votes in those states.
went up in smoke soon as "massive voter irregularities " were
discovered in some heavy Democrat precincts in Michigan,
according to New York Post.
There was immediate
suspicion about the real personage behind the recount request.
And the suspicion was justified when Hillary joined Stein in the
precincts and subsequent court battles.
Of course, Hillary had more need to keep herself in the hunt for
additional delegates than Stein. Had Trump faltered, Hillary could
have picked up more delegates and snatched the presidency from him.
The recount effort was costly and wasteful but in reality it was
one that could only come from an old Democrat playbook, Florida 2000.
Note that Democrats always prefer and demand recounts in
friendly constituencies where the vote totals are closer; just
so to massage a few "chards" out for the advantage,
like in Florida!
Thus Wisconsin, Michigan and
Pennsylvania fitted the Florida bill.
Palm Beach county in Florida, which
The New York Times described as “staunchly democrat” at that
time, was used to push for the 2000 recounts in mostly Democrat
The aftermath was a mess. The two terms of the Bush
administration were damaged. But Gore, however, went on to prosper;
personal ambition, which was the main cause, enhanced and the
prestige went to gain him wealth and global influence.
The future may hold the same rewards for
Hillary. But, oddly to this day, she has yet to express publicly
her gratitude to Stein for providing respite for her crushed
Sadly for Hillary, the
recounts misfired. Trump, the intended victim, picked
up some extra votes after the recount to strengthen his lead.
The struggle for Hillary wouldn't end
Next came the ongoing excuse; the charge
Russian influence in the election had aided Trump's victory. No hard
proof required, just presumed and stated!
Russians are accused of using WikiLeak as instrument to
spread misinformation about Hillary.
WikiLeak has quickly denied the charge.
Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Mr. Craig Murray, came out from the
shadows to admit that “he flew to Washington, D.C. (to collect)
the emails,” which he personally handed to WikiLeak, reported
the Daily Mail of UK.
Mr. Murray insisted that there was
no Russian involvement, only the single act of
a disgruntled insider at the center of the Clinton campaign, and
that this fellow had handed to him the leaks for WikiLeak.
Curiously, Democrats are yet to prove or show that any of
exposed email had been altered or falsified
to merit the misinformation charge.
President Barrack Obama has picked up on the
Russian intrusion theme. Overlooked is the seriousness of the
affairs disclosed in the leaks, thus helping to move
America closer towards enmity with Russia - all done to preserve
the US Congress, controlled by Republicans, is yet to receive
proof of the Russian involvement from the intelligence community, The CIA,
the NSA, the FBI among others.
But how convenient the accusation of Russia's
involvement, just when Democrats have suffered the most horrific
defeat since the1920s!
Where were the Russians in 2008 when
Democrats scored a historic victory with Obama's election, or 2012 when he was reelected; were the
same Russians involved in these elections too?
would Russia help to elect Trump, a man whose campaigning theme
in 2016 was “America first” and “Make America Great Again,” How
do these themes promote Russia's interest?
Or was is it a
vendetta against Hillary as she claims? Her issues are the same
as the Obama administrations'. And these have
already proven to be sterile against Russian interest advancements.
She is a known
Under Obama, the Russians have managed to expand their
territories and influences in regions close to home and those far away
in the Middle and Far East. so it doesn't make sense to see her
this late as a threat to
So what is it about Hillary
that could have made a difference in threat to the Russians?
Whatever that is, don't look for clues on her campaign platform.
Locally, she had no message to inspire her own base,
except to accuse Trump of being racist, homophobic, her
rants against his immigration and trade policies, his promise to dismantle Obamacare. and
beneficiary of an ignorant, deplorable base of supporters!
any of the above issues would have troubled the Russians?
Unless, perhaps, if they had seen something damning on her private server;
the server that she deliberately wiped clean!.
Think blackmail is possible in this
Under the above scenario, it would have
been wise to see Hillary as a weakling, the one the Russians
would prefer as president.
But the attempt to keep
Trump out of office is shaping up. The
use of electors in a proxy fight against him is on.. If enough
of his electors could be persuaded or intimidated to defect, Hillary
could be the next president.
Unfair move. But for the Democrat
it is just
the ploy left at this stage to gain power. However, they claim theirs
is only an attempt to spare Americans the unthinkable folly of
having Russia choose an "idiot" as president for them.
Funny, in this little sketch
hubris and also a display of the Achilles heel in the
proved damaging to Hillary.
Hillary's campaign thought they were the smart
set. Yet it was flummoxed by Trump, who spent less than a
quarter compared to the budget for her campaign.
seeing all this, a question has to be asked of President Obama,
our first African-American president, as to why he has backed
Hillary this far to risk distaste for his own legacy?.
Clearly, the Russian charge offers
no truce for peaceful coexistence between the two countries for
the remainder of Obama administration.
if the intent of Russia is to cause distrust and confusion is true, then Hillary and the Democrats are already in the lead;
bringing the chaos in elections to America..
This last effort to use electors to
dump Trump is the evidence. It is highly unprecedented and
if successful would amount to a virtual coup..
note, the only good thing is that the Russian narrative is
proving false and has exposed the hypocrisy of the liberal
character and their false cry for integrity in the political
We know now that
for Democrats the American universe changes only at moments when they
Electors are won within states on the
plurality vote, same basis Democrats claim to cherish.
But to push the
state aside and to go plurality on the national level will be to forgo
the interest and rights of states under the federal system, which the constitution
seeks to preserve.
The plurality vote only may also
remove barriers to corruption of the ballot within states. In all seriousness, a close examination of the
large votes in states like California, where controls are lax, should be
This integrity of the plurality vote
that Democrats want may have to be suspect at this stage.
You have to ask first
what kind of integrity it is that calls for a patent weakening
of the current political system of America?
E. Ablorh-Odjidja,Publisher www.ghanadot.com,
Washington, DC, December 17, 2016.
Permission to publish:
Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits,
unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page
to email@example.com . Or don't publish at al