The entitlement curse

E. Ablorh-Odjidja

December 17, 2016

Entitlement to power requires a process. These days, the process starts with denying your opponent a path to the same power you seek, by any means necessary.

In America, the process becomes intensified, if your opponent happens to be a Republican and you are a Democrat.  And then worst, if the opponent happens to be named Trump.

The 2016 presidential election is over.  Trump won.  But Democrats are saddled with grief about the loss, forgetting that they chose a very heavily flawed candidate, in the person of Hillary Clinton.

So, they have resorted to the same chicanery, the same twist, and turns of reasoning, of the most bizarre kind that first brought Hillary to the front row as a candidate.  This time the chicanery is meant to thwart Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency, even though he won the 2016 presidential race.

So, the key reason for Hillary's loss to Trump was the Russians.  They colluded with Trump.  On this reasoning, they have appealed to the “conscience” of the electoral college, asking the electors to redirect the already decided 2016 race for Hillary!

That’s how bizarre the reaction of Democrats to the election result of 2016 has become.  And it will continue to be, even after President-elect Trump is sworn into office on January 20, 2017.

Thinking back, you could have seen this state of affairs coming; the modus operandi of the smart-set, mostly Democrats and liberals, think they alone are entitled to rule the rest of us.  Electoral defeat at the polls, under any legitimate circumstance, doesn’t matter; unless a Democrat is declared the winner.

The US, Florida 2000 election marked a recent indication of the liberal Democrat will to power.  George Bush's won that election but was never allowed any room to breathe as the victor.  And now it is Trumps’ turn to suffer, a short two days before the Electoral College casts its vote and then on to his inaugural as the 45^th President of the US.

Trump has 306 electoral delegates from the states he won, more votes than the 270 required by the constitution.  These electoral votes together signify the combined political interest and intention within these states.

Out of the “3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57."  And, from the ten largest states, Trump has seven and Clinton three.  

Trump has fulfilled the federal demand for the presidency.  But now Hillary and the liberals want to subvert it.  All because they think Trump is unfit for the presidency., regardless of the constitutional demand.

They insist that the popular vote must decide the 2016 election.  A clever proposition since Hillary won in states with the super largest population, New York and California.

California's vote count for 2016 alone could have given Hillary the victory in a popular vote contest.  But take away the same California vote and she would have lost the overall popular vote too!

However, allowing votes in one state like California to decide the victor in a presidential election is not being faithful to the concept of federalism under which the US constitution operates.  Democrats know this.  But this knowledge means nothing to them if it leads to their defeat.

Democrats want to change the rules, damage the constitutional hold on elections and its obligations on electors. So, they attack the Electoral College as means to get rid of Trump.

Hillary’s concession speech was without grace.  In it, there was this sense of loss and entitlement; transparently similar to that of a defeated Third World President, like Yahya Jammeh of Gambia at this same time in history.

Yaya's was blunt in the manner of the antics of a Third World loser.  Hillary's was subtle but more devious in intent.

Incidentally, nobody on her side of the political aisle noted the difference.  Not even our Obama, the first African-American president.

Decided, Hillary was on her path to power in the manner of the liberal tradition. Thus unalloyed lies become "truths."  The Russian stole the election for Trump, they proffered.

And Hillary, however, won the popular vote.  Therefore she deserved to be the president-elect; constitutional dicta be damned. 

And with the liberal media in tow, the claim became justifiable for the gullible public, especially those who are ignorant about the constitutional duties of the Electoral College. 

As Hillary’s twisted narrative continued. Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, who had no chance as the winner of 2016, requested recounts in three critical Democrat-leaning states that Trump had won. 

Stein had about 1% of the total votes in those states.  But guess who quickly jumped on Stein’s bandwagon?  Hillary!

Had the recounts gone against Trump, Hillary could have picked up more delegates and snatched the presidency from him.

But the attempt went up in smoke, when "massive voter irregularities " were discovered in some heavy Democrat precincts in Michigan, according to New York Post.  

Democrats always demanded recounts in friendly constituencies where the vote totals were closer; just to massage from the count a few favorable "chards" for victory, as it happened in Florida!

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 counties.  Democrats lost the recounts.  But the aftermath was the damage to Bush as the truly elected president.

Gore, however, went on to prosper.  His loss was quickly enhanced on the global stage when he went in pursuit of "global warming" containment.  He gained an immense wealth and prestige as a result.

Hillary’s ultimate quest beyond the presidential prestige is unknown.  But even if she should fail this time, the damage she would have done to Trump's first term would be enough reward. 

This subterfuge, she might have hoped, would be good enough to boost her chances for a 2020 run.

As soon as the electoral college challenge took an unwanted turn, Hillary and her cohorts brought in the lie that the Russians had aided Trump's victory. 

President Barrack Obama, in turn, quickly accepted the Russian Collusion narrative, as have many Democrat top officials.  No hard proof required, just presumed and stated!

The Russians are now accused of using WikiLeak as an instrument to spread misinformation about Hillary.  WikiLeak denied the charge of Russian involvement.

The Ex-British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Mr. Craig Murray, came out from the shadows to admit that the Russian had no part in the leak.  He said “he flew to Washington, D.C. (to collect) the emails,” which he handed to WikiLeak,” as reported by the Daily Mail of UK.

Mr. Murray insisted that a disgruntled worker inside the Clinton campaign had handed to him the leaks that went to WikiLeak.

Curiously, Democrats are yet to answer the “disgruntled worker” implication.  And still yet to prove or show that any of the leaked emails published by WikiLeak had been altered or contained falsified information.

Meanwhile, the US Congress, controlled by Republicans, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI among others are yet to confirm the Russian involvement.  But how convenient.  Just when Democrats have suffered the most horrific defeat since the1920s here comes the Russians to the rescue!

Where were the Russians in 2008 when Democrats scored a historic victory with Obama's election, or 2012 when he was reelected?

And why 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?

Under Obama, the Russians managed to expand their territories and influence in regions closer to home.  They won back Crimea while Hillary was the Secretary of State.  In all, the Russians gained because of the Obama administration’s foreign policy failures.  So why should Hillary’s election be a threat to Russian interests?

Hillary's domestic policies had no message to inspire her base, except to accuse Trump of being racist, homophobic, and her rants against his being the choice of an ignorant, “deplorable” class of supporters!

None of the issues Hillary ranted on would have troubled the Russians enough to push them to help Trump. 

And just in case, the Russians had leaked her email, then they would have seen something also damning on her private server; the server that she wanted to hide and, therefore, deliberately wiped clean!

Under the above scenario, there would be no way the Russians could have feared Hillary.  They would rather see her as a weakling; one who would be vulnerable to Russia’s blackmail and, therefore, the preferred US president.

But for Hillary and the Democrats, the attempt to get the Russians attached to Trump’s victory has become such a fixation and a ploy to regain power. 

The unthinkable folly of accusing the Russians for having chosen an "idiot" as president for the US, and the negative specter it casts on the American presidency, is yet to occur to them.

Idiot or not, the Democrats, with all the electoral advantages they had as the incumbent party, were flummoxed by Trump, who spent less than a quarter of what Hillary did for her campaign.

At this stage, the Russian charge offers no truce for peaceful coexistence between the two countries.  The accusation could cause distrust and confusion in America/Russia relationship for the unforeseeable future.

The only good thing is that the Russian narrative is likely to prove false.  And the hypocrisy and falsity of presumed “intelligence” of the liberal set will be revealed as a hoax.   

What remains perplexing is why President Obama has backed Hillary this far to risk distaste for his legacy?

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, December 17, 2016.