Elections Have Consequences

Elections Have Consequences

Ah, Democrats—and the mainstream media. Is that being redundant? They want members of the Electoral College to ignore their responsibility to cast ballots according to the provisions of their respective states and instead vote for Hillary Clinton for President. Unprecedented. Quasi-illegal.

They would have you up in arms because the Russians interfered in our American presidential election. How did they do that? You see, none of the voting machines in any state are connected to the internet (as far as I know—if they are, I would suggest the Democrats would be more likely to sabotage our elections than the Russians). No, you see, what the Russians did (and we have it on very good authority—Obama’s CIA) was hack the Democrat National Committee’s email account and—what else? Hillary’s private server?—to release emails, none of which, at this writing, have been denied as to their authenticity.

All this could have been prevented by the performance of one simple expediency: Had Hillary released all those emails in a timely fashion, when they were requested by Congress and by the FBI, the attendant consequences would have been faced and possibly overcome by the time of the election. She had a choice, and she chose to ignore subpoenas requesting ALL emails her office had sent and received during her tenure as Secretary of State. In essence, until Wikileaks started releasing emails pilfered from the Democrat National Committee’s “secure” server, all previous emails concerning Hillary’s conduct of affairs as Secretary of State should have already been in the public domain—released, publicized and vetted—according to the law.  Ah, but there’s the rub. You see, what we deplorables have not come to understand is that the law was never meant to be applied to the Clintons. Tell me who else—besides perhaps Barack Obama—would have the audacity to establish his own private server, rather than utilizing supposedly secure government equipment, in defiance of the law and presidential orders?

Who else would have so little regard for security as to relay classified information through her cleaning lady, who I think it is safe to say does not have a Top Secret security clearance? Who else might tell the Supreme Court, “I know what your subpoena says, but these are all the emails you are going to get from me.”?

Let’s go back to a point made earlier in this piece; the fact that this is Barack Obama’s CIA that has ostensibly obtained sufficient evidence to conclude that it was the Russians who hacked into Hillary’s private server and that of the DNC. An unintended consequence of using the IRS, ICE, FBI, CIA and any other government agency as water-carriers for the administration—to silence objections and deny equal access—is that it tends to make Americans doubtful of anything—ANYTHING—the government might say through any of its agencies. There are times, I am sure, when President Obama desperately NEEDS the American people to believe him. Some information coming from his office might be true; might even be critical for the American people to know. However, like the little boy in the fairy tale who cried wolf one too many times, he has sacrificed all believability. In fact, if you still believe what the President puts out, I have a friend who would like to talk to you about some oceanfront property he has for sale in Oklahoma.

Although he appears to have forgotten it, Obama famously told the Republicans in 2008 or 2012; maybe both: “There are consequences to losing elections”. Those consequences exist for both parties, Mr. President.