Trump's election drives left beyond bounds of decency and civility

Twitter post of the "Rape Melania" sign (screenshot by David Thornton)

The election of the Donald Trump seems to have pushed many in the liberal left over the brink of sanity and common decency. First came the protests and violence. Ironically, this was the same sort of violence that some had expected of Trump supporters in the then-likely event that Hillary Clinton won the election. Even as the protests continue, the leftist response among many non-rioting leftists ranges from the irrational to loathsome.

In one bizarre case, Rachel Zarrell of MTV News tweeted a threat to mail Mike Pence a “monthly bag of period blood” if he “tries to regulate my uterus.” The tweet, posted on Daily Wire, was an apparent reference to Pence’s pro-life views, although another Twitter user answered Zarrell and pointed out her confusion. “Clearly you're ignorant of biology,” DC MCallister wrote. “A uterus and a fetus are two different entities. Saving the latter isn't ‘regulating’ the former.”

Zarrell may also be confused about Mike Pence’s role in the federal government. Laws are passed by Congress and Mike Pence, as the incoming vice president, will have a primarily ceremonial role in Congress. The vice president has very little control over anything. John Nance Garner, vice president to Franklin Roosevelt, famously observed that “the vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit.”

Speaking of containers of bodily fluids, Zarrell might also want check into the Post Office regulations on shipping organic matter. Blood can be considered a biohazard and subject to hazardous materials regulations.

If Zarrell’s tweet was bizarre and disgusting, another anti-Trump protester’s message was, well, deplorable. The message on a protest sign spotted at a Washington, DC rally read, “Rape Melania.” This sign was all the more ironic and reprehensible in light of the campaign issue of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton’s treatment of women.

As the husband of a victim of sexual assault, let me just say that any call to rape or sexually assault anyone has no place in civilized discourse. Even in jest, the suggestion that someone would think that raping a candidate’s wife is an appropriate response to the democratic will of the people is morally bankrupt and indefensible.

Thankfully, as Heat Street pointed out, an associated #RapeMelania hashtag on Twitter was primarily used to condemn the sign.

If rape weren’t bad enough, some online leftists have openly called for and speculated about the assassination of Trump. The New York Post reported that the CEO of a California cybersecurity firm was forced to resign after tweeting a “flawed joke” about killing Trump with a sniper rifle. WCSH News reported that an Ohio man had actually been arrested for tweeting his intention to kill Donald Trump.

Opponents of Donald Trump have the freedom to criticize and protest his election, but should remember that words have meaning. Some words go beyond the bounds of civility and decency and cross the line to criminal behavior.

Voice your opposition, but watch what you say. The Secret Service will.      

Originally published on The Resurgent

Who really won the popular vote?

Posts surfaced on the internet within days of the election claiming that the “final election 2016 numbers” showed that Donald Trump had won both the Electoral College and popular vote. While not all absentee votes have been counted and Michigan’s vote count is still incomplete as of this writing, it appears that Hillary Clinton will have received more popular votes than Donald Trump when the final count is made.

At present, all major news sources agree that Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump in the popular vote. A check of Fox News and CNN showed identical vote tallies for the two candidates. Donald Trump is credited with 60,834,437 votes and Hillary Clinton has 61,782,016. The reported returns give Clinton a lead of almost a million votes.

The claims that Trump received more votes seem to stem from a blog post on Nov. 12 that claimed Trump had won 62.9 million to 62.2 million when the “final election 2016 numbers” were in. The blog cites an unsourced Twitter post for its claim.  

The author of the blog updated his post on Nov. 15 to argue that his unsourced numbers were correct. “The popular vote number still need [sic] to be updated in Wikipedia or MSM media – which may take another few days because the liberals are still reeling and recovering from Trump-shock victory,” the blog states. The blog also says that 3 million votes “should be removed from Hillary Clinton” because of voting by illegal aliens and voter fraud. “Trump by default is the winner in the popular vote,” the site exults.

Different states have different rules and deadlines for counting votes, but they all face a common deadline in the meeting of the Electoral College. Members of the Electoral College meet in their states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year that date falls on December 19. The final, official popular vote tallies should be available by that date.

It is possible that recounts could flip some states. According to the International Business Times on Nov. 14, Trump currently leads Michigan by just over 13,000 votes and Clinton’s edge in New Hampshire is only 2,700 votes. Nevertheless, it would take the reversal of more than one swing state to change the Electoral College outcome.

It is somewhat of a mystery why the popular vote is such a contentious issue. Above state level, it matters only for bragging rights. Popular vote is only used in determining the winner of each state’s electoral votes. If the current trends continue, Trump would not be first president to win with a minority of the popular vote. Factcheck.org reports that it has happened four times previously in U.S. history, including George W. Bush’s 2000 victory over Al Gore.

Originally Published on The Resurgent

Paul Ryan set to return as Speaker

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) appears set to return in his role as Speaker in the next Congress. A secret ballot election among the Republican caucus today will set the stage for the formal election of the Speaker in January.

If Ryan wins today’s internal election for leadership of the Republicans in the House, he will be all but certain to return to the speakership next year. Today’s vote requires a majority of the Republican conference while the vote for speaker in January requires a majority of all lawmakers present, typically 218 votes.

The relationship between Speaker Ryan and President-elect Donald Trump has been contentious since the primary and is likely to continue to be so. Ryan issued a qualified endorsement of Trump after he secured the Republican nomination, but declined to campaign for him after release of the “Access Hollywood” tape.

A point of disagreement has emerged since the election as Trump doubled down on his plan to deport large numbers of illegal immigrants. “I think we should put people's minds at ease: That is not what our focus is. That is not what we're focused on. We're focused on securing the border,” Ryan said on CNN. “We think that's first and foremost, before we get into any other immigration issue, we've got to know who's coming and going into the country -- we've got to secure the border.”

Ryan’s return also sets the stage for a conflict with Trump advisor, Steve Bannon. Ben Shapiro, a former employee of Bannon at Breitbart News, wrote in the Daily Wire, “Bannon opposes the Republican Party, hates Paul Ryan” and noted that “minutes after the joint Bannon/Priebus announcement, Breitbart News approvingly tweeted about a Congressional rebellion against Speaker Ryan.”

Ryan’s return as Speaker will set the stage for a struggle over the future of the Republican Party. Republicans and President Trump will be pulled between the technocratic reforms of Paul Ryan and the scorched earth philosophy of Steve Bannon. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Filibuster's days may be numbered

Many are assessing the future after last night’s Trump victory, an outcome that few expected. There are many questions about the future and the upcoming Trump Administration. One question involves the future of the filibuster.

The Senate filibuster rule requires a majority cloture vote to end debate on legislation before it can take a final vote on a bill. The filibuster rule is not specified in the Constitution but has been a part of Senate rules since 1841 according to the Senate website. In 1917, the Senate passed a rule requiring a two-thirds vote for cloture to end debate on a bill. The requirement was reduced to three-fifths, 60 votes, in 1975. Majority Leader Harry Reid ended the filibuster on many presidential appointments in 2013.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014, Democrats have successfully used the filibuster rule to deny cloture on a number of Republican bills. There were 54 Republicans in the Senate, six short of the 60 vote requirement to end debate and move a bill forward. This Democratic road block led many conservatives to call for an end to the filibuster. Under President Obama, this would have been a strategic error because Republicans still would not have had the votes to override President Obama’s veto.

In 2017, when Donald Trump becomes president, he will have a Republican majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Even with those majorities, Democrats still retain enough votes to block cloture on Republican bills. The road block will still exist.

To avoid Democrats bottling up legislation, the new Republican Senate may invoke the “nuclear option” and choose to eliminate or weaken the filibuster rules. Since the filibuster is not specified in the Constitution, it can be easily changed at the beginning of a Senate session by the majority party.

Democrats had already signaled a change to the filibuster if Hillary Clinton had won the election. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told Talking Points Memo, “If the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told 'em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again.”

Opinions of the filibuster vary depending on which party is in power. The filibuster protects the minority party so Democrats, who were critical of Republican use of the filibuster, can be expected to defend it fiercely with Republicans in the majority. The reverse is also likely to be true.

After six years of Democrat obstructionism in Congress, the temptation to eliminate the filibuster may be too much for Republicans to ignore. With a broad mandate and angry Republicans eager to start rolling back President Obama’s legacy, the filibuster’s days are likely numbered. 

Originally published in The Resurgent

Electors threaten to go rogue

The Electoral College system is a unique institution. Americans don’t vote for a presidential candidate. They vote for electors who then go to the Electoral College and vote for a president in their place. Normally the Electoral College election is a formality, but this year at least two electors have indicated that they may not vote for their party’s candidate. Two electors from party base states, one from Texas and the other from Washington, have threatened to go their own way due to their displeasure with their respective party nominees.

Chris Suprun, a firefighter from Texas who is a Republican elector, told Politico in August that he may not vote for Donald Trump, assuming that Trump wins Texas, because the candidate was “saying things that in an otherwise typical election year would have you disqualified.” In particular, Suprun took issue with Trump’s foreign policy, characterizing it as “The generals are going to commit war crimes because I tell them to.”

“I’m still amazed he made it through the process,” Suprun said. “I’m not sure who his voters were or how they identify him with what I would consider Republican principles of small government.”

Suprun, who was a first responder at the Pentagon on 9/11, said that he ran for a position as an elector with the intention of voting for the party nominee, but had second thoughts because of Trump’s behavior and rhetoric. He also noted that his congressional district is a district that has a Democratic congressman and will not go for Trump.

Robert Satiacum, a Washington State elector, has gone a step further. “She will not get my vote, period,” Satiacum said of Hillary Clinton in the Associated Press on Monday. Satiacum is a member of the Puyallup Tribe and does not believe that Clinton has done enough for Native Americans and that she lied about her private email server.

Satiacum, who was a delegate for Bernie Sanders, told ABC News, “Maybe I'll vote Mickey Mouse. In all seriousness, maybe I should vote for Bozo the Clown.” In contrast, Chris Suprun indicated that he may vote for Hillary Clinton.

Some states have laws designed to prevent electors from defecting. Washington State law requires electors to pledge that they will vote for their party nominee. A violation is punishable by a $1,000 fine. Texas electors must take an oath to support their party candidate, but there is no penalty. Twenty-nine states have laws that prohibit electors from deviating from the will of the voters according to FairVote.

There have been “faithless electors” in the past. The most recent example of a faithless elector was in 2004 when an elector from Minnesota voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry. In 1972, CBS News notes, the co-creator of “Little House on the Prairie,” Roger McBride, was an elector for Richard Nixon, but voted instead for the Libertarian candidate. The vote earned several footnotes in political history. It was the only electoral vote ever won by the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate, Tonie Nathan, became the first woman and the first Jew to win an electoral vote. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election.

The defection of electors would mean that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would have to win more than 270 electoral votes to clinch the presidency. Their final decisions may not be known for weeks and may affect the outcome of a close election. Members of the Electoral College meet in their states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year that date falls on December 19. The winner of the election will not be officially declared before then.

With continuing revelations about both Trump’s and Clinton’s pasts, as well as Trump’s penchant for outrageous behavior, the month between the general election and the Electoral College election could see additional electors who find that they cannot support the candidate chosen by the people. It is possible, especially if the general election is close, that the end result of the Electoral College could be different than what the popular vote indicates.

Suprun argues that the Founding Fathers didn’t intend the Electoral College to be a rubber stamp. Electors should “take a look at all the facts, figure it out and make the right call,” he said in Politico.

                                        

“I would never say never to anything.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

What to look for on election night

After almost two years in the making, Election Day 2016 is almost here. Thanks to Russia, WikiLeaks and the FBI, the election looks to be much closer than many of us thought it would be. Polling is close, but favoring Hillary Clinton. At this point, it is by no means a blowout and Donald Trump does have a chance of winning.

There are several very important races on the East Coast where polls will close first. The swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia will all be among the first states in the nation to be decided. Virginia has been generally assumed to be leaning toward Clinton so the other three states are all must-win for Trump. Although wildly inconsistent, polling seems to show Clinton ahead in North Carolina and Trump leading in Ohio. Florida is a dead heat. If Trump doesn’t carry Florida, North Carolina and Ohio the race may well be over before polls close in the Central Time Zone.

There are also three blue states to watch that have been soft in their support for Clinton. Even if he wins all the swing states, Trump must flip at least one sizable blue state or states worth about 12 electoral votes to win the Electoral College. Some observers believe that Pennsylvania is his best chance to do that. If Trump manages to flip Pennsylvania and take the swing states, the Clinton campaign will have a long night.

New Hampshire and Maine’s second congressional district also give Trump a chance to peel off some of Hillary’s electoral votes. Polls in New Hampshire have closed in recent weeks with several polls showing Trump in the lead. These small prizes probably won’t decide the election, but could signal a shift in the electoral map.

There is also one traditional red state to watch. A recent poll in Georgia showed Trump with only a one-point lead. Other polls over the past few months showed a tight race in the Peach State. Georgia will probably rally toward Trump, but a Clinton victory there could mean a rout for Donald Trump.

In the central states, Iowa is the only traditional swing state. Trump is currently favored there and it is the most likely swing state for him to flip.

A bad night for Hillary Clinton might see close races in Michigan and Wisconsin. She is favored in both typically blue states, but by single-digit margins. Trump originally had high hopes of competing in these Rust Belt states, but was never able to gain traction.

The red state of Texas showed a tight race several weeks ago, but the gap has since opened in favor of Trump. Still, a large Hispanic electorate could mean problems for Donald Trump. If Georgia goes for Hillary, keep a close eye on Texas.

Moving west, there are four states to watch. Colorado and Nevada are traditionally considered swing states and both remain in tossup status. Colorado is favored for Clinton, but the race is very tight. The situation is the same in Nevada where Trump holds a slight edge in polling.

Arizona is another red state to watch. Over the past few weeks, Hillary Clinton was actually able to take the lead for a brief time in this border state that typically goes Republican. Trump regained some ground to take a slight lead, but is still running well behind Sen. John McCain (R) in his reelection bid. Like Texas, Trump’s weakness with Hispanic voters could cause him problems in Arizona.

The deep red state of Utah will be one of the most interesting states to watch. Native son Evan McMullin is mounting a surprisingly strong independent campaign and was in the lead for a short time. Trump is currently favored but uneven polling for third party candidates may mean that McMullin has a better chance than generally believed.

The presidential election is only part of the night. Equally, if not more, important, are several races to determine control of the Senate. Democrats need five seats to take control of the Senate and there are eight battleground races for Republican seats. The outcome here may be even closer than the presidential race.

Of the eight races, the Republicans are only the favorite in Florida where Marco Rubio should be reelected. The Democrats are favored in Illinois and Wisconsin. That leaves three tossup races in Missouri, New Hampshire and North Carolina. Indiana and Pennsylvania also recently moved from likely Democratic to tossup status as polling for the Republican incumbents improved.

Additionally, the Democrats are defending one Senate seat in a tossup race. Republican Joe Heck is fighting hard for Harry Reid’s seat in Nevada. The race has been within the margin of error of most polls.

In the House of Representatives, the Republicans are expected to lose seats, the big question is how many. There seems to be little question that Republicans will still control the House next term. This will provide a firewall against the Clinton agenda if Hillary wins and the Democrats take the Senate. It will not prevent Hillary from appointing radical judges, however.

Trump’s path to the presidency is a narrow one. Trump must win all of the swing states that are still in play plus at least one blue state. Hillary has an easier task. She can block him by winning Florida or North Carolina and holding Pennsylvania. The battle for the Senate is much less clear with six tossup races to watch.

One way or another, the long national nightmare of the 2016 campaign is almost over. We are about to embark on an entirely new one.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why I voted for Evan McMullin and not Donald Trump

I’m a lifelong conservative who has voted Republican as long as I can remember. Growing up, I watched President Reagan swing Georgia from a state where a Republican couldn’t get elected dogcatcher to a state that was almost totally red. A defining moment of my political life was when I saw President Reagan live at a campaign rally in Atlanta. I started listening to Rush Limbaugh on talk radio in the 1990s and have been writing my conservative Christian blog since 2007.

This makes it all the more surprising for people when they find out that I’m not voting for Donald Trump. In fact, I voted early last week and cast my ballot for Evan McMullin, the independent conservative.

Why I voted for McMullin and why I didn’t vote for Trump are closely intertwined. The bottom line for me is that I don’t believe that either Trump or Hillary should be president. In fact, I don’t believe that either Trump or Hillary should be allowed anywhere near the White House. Not even on a tour group.

People say that if I don’t want Hillary to be president, I should support Donald Trump. The truth is that I oppose Trump for many of the same reasons that I oppose Hillary Clinton. The two candidates are evenly matched in many areas. Trump and Hillary both have deep character flaws. Both are chronic liars. Both are dishonest. Both are corrupt.

I had always said that I would vote Republican as long as the party supported my beliefs and values. Under Donald Trump, it no longer does.

Hillary’s corruption is well known, but when I looked into Trump’s background, I found a seemingly endless list of scandals even before the revelation of his sexual harassment problem. Not paying workers, using eminent domain to take the homes of less wealthy and connected Americans, and openly bragging about bribing elected officials are only the icing on the cake. His unsatisfied clients say Trump was literally a con man who stole tens of thousands of dollars from hardworking real estate investors through Trump University and then allegedly paid off state attorneys general like Pam Bondi in Florida to cover his tracks.

I’ve been told that Trump’s corruption is less damning because he was in the private sector or that the amounts of money involved were less than the Clinton Foundation payoffs. In truth, corruption is a matter of the heart. If Trump would steal from a guy who has to max out his credit card to pay Trump University tuition, why would he not steal from the taxpayers of the United States or use his position to line his own pockets?

If Christian conservatives like me put aside our ethical problems with Trump to defeat Hillary, what have we won? Trump is a New York liberal who, until he started planning to run for president, held traditional liberal views. Even while running as a Republican he has advocated universal government healthcare and raising the minimum wage, supported federal money for Planned Parenthood, and has even adopted Democrat positions on gun control. You would be hard pressed to find any of Donald Trump’s positions which involve shrinking government or making it less powerful. If we elect Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, we will only have succeeded in electing a different liberal.

Trump is even worse than Hillary on some issues. Trump bragged that his trade policy was “very similar” to that of Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. An analysis of Trump’s tariffs and rejection of trade deals found that they would probably cause a recession that might cost as many as 5 million American jobs.

He is no less of an isolationist when it comes to military alliances. He has threatened not to defend NATO allies and called NATO itself “obsolete,” even as Vladimir Putin’s forces carve off pieces of the Ukraine. Trump has said that he is open to proliferation of nuclear weapons and threatened to withdraw American troops from South Korea and Japan where they have stabilized East Asia for the past 60 years.

It was not being too strong that caused the last world war, it was being too deferential to expansionist dictatorships. This is a problem for Trump as well. Trump seems to have a fascination with dictators, but his admiration for Vladimir Putin is particularly troubling, from their bromance last fall to the growing body of evidence that Russia is interfering with the election in a way that benefits Trump. Russia’s investment in Trump may have already paid off. This year’s Republican Party platform dropped a proposal to arm Ukraine against the Russian invaders. The change reportedly came from the Trump campaign. Trump also seems ready to yield America’s role in the Middle East to Russia.

I can find no evidence that Trump is the America-loving conservative that he claims to be. There seems to be no Emmaus road moment that he can point to that led him to change his mind on so many issues. I can find no evidence that he is anything other than an actor playing a role. He is a liberal playing a conservative and occasionally he lapses into his true beliefs or cynically changes positions where he sees a potential benefit.

The character problems, liberal ideology and erratic behavior are red flags that warn about Trump’s lack of judgment. Just as Hillary Clinton’s use of an unapproved private email server and solicitation of donations in exchange for access while Secretary of State are disqualifying, Trump’s many scandals are a warning to voters that he is not to be trusted either.

In fact, almost everything about both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton seems to resonate as a warning against making them president. I cannot think of two people that I believe are less equipped to handle presidential authority and responsibility than the Terrible Two.

Some argue that Trump would surround himself with good people who would keep him in line. I think the reverse is true. One need only watch Mike Pence’s debate performance to see the corrupting influence of Trump on the Republican Party. Pence made excuses for Donald Trump and transparently denied that Trump said things that everyone has seen him say on video. What would four years with Trump as leader of the GOP do to the America’s conservative party?

Just when I was considering voting for Gary Johnson as protest or even not voting at all since Johnson showed himself to be a nut, Evan McMullin announced his candidacy.

After watching several interviews of McMullin, I boarded the “Evan Express.” McMullin is essentially a traditional Republican. He is a pro-life, free trade, strong defense, small government conservative. After working for the Republicans in the House of Representatives as a policy advisor, McMullin knows his stuff. He seems to be more knowledgeable than any other candidate, including Hillary Clinton. It is unfortunate that he was not included in the debates.

What really sold me on McMullin was not his policy chops though. What sold me on McMullin was simply the fact that, in a race dominated by two people who are, to use Hillary’s word, deplorable, he was an honest, decent man. He is the sort of person who tries to bring people together, rather than drive wedges between demographics to glom onto a few more votes.

I know that McMullin is a long shot. On the other hand, McMullin’s odds of becoming president are far greater than the odds of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becoming a president that I can be proud of. Given the choice between sacrificing my beliefs to elect an untrustworthy, liberal Republican who I believe would be a disaster for the country or supporting a candidate that who shares my beliefs, I decided to vote my conscience.

David Thornton is a contributor to The Resurgent