There has never been an interregnum like the one we are experiencing now. Since Eisenhower beat Stevenson the first time – which is as far as my memory can recall concerning presidential events – winners and losers have been gracious. Losers, in particular, have shown their class by offering support to the winner and, if a retiring president, assistance from his own presidential experience. People then put the election behind them and wished success to the new president.

Not in 2016. This retiring president, Barack Obama, has promised only criticism and his losing party has contorted itself trying to de-legitimize the winner, Donald Trump. What is so different this year?

Eight years ago, to begin with, we elected one of the least honest men in our history. Mr. Obama was allied with some strange people, had an obscure but largely Communist past, and religious philosophies that leaned toward Islam despite his claim to have been a Christian while attending Reverend Wright’s black theology, anti-white, “America-is-usually-wrong “church. Further, Obama populated his advisory corps and top cabinet positions – especially in intelligence and Justice – with avowed communists, anti-white and anti-Christian leaders. Strange, and unique.

Mr. Obama’s domestic policies did not “tend” toward liberalism, they drove full-steam beyond liberalism toward outright statism, including many elements of the Communist Manifesto. Federalized, socialized medicine is the most notable of these, but his regulatory regime has changed the government-private relationship in thousands of ways. The Justice department has been politicized and tilted against whites extraordinarily and unprecedentedly. This changed the local and state-federal relationships in policing and law-enforcement in ways that have literally cost lives and property.

Foreign policies, including immigration policy, have changed America’s relationship with almost every nation, always to the diminishment of the United States and to the advantage of our enemies-competitors. Immigration has flooded the nation with illegal entrants who are largely not interested in “becoming” Americans, but in “changing” America, itself. Among these are tens of thousands of fundamentalist Muslim “refugees” who form enclaves – racial, tribal and religious-cultural. The premise of their differences is inherently antithetical to the U. S. Constitution and to state and local jurisprudence. It is odd to work so hard to bring non-assimilators to one’s country – stupid, unless it fulfills a purpose.

And that is the last puzzle-piece that is Barack Hussein Obama: transforming America into a non-white, non-dominant nation, weakening if not destroying capitalism and private property, and ultimately punishing white America for colonialism, slavery, success and Jim Crow repression. Nothing we’ve done to correct our errors counts. The mistakes we’ve made are irredeemable… mainly because we have resources that Obama believes must be paid in reparations. Most of what Obama attempted and achieved is uniquely threatening to the national psyche. That is the main difference in the 2016 elections.

Mrs. Clinton is, essentially, a footnote in the reaction to, and defeat of, what Barack Obama attempted. She never was a good candidate, nor an honest one. Two sublimely dishonest liberal-socialist presidents in a row are too much for Americans to acquiesce to. Donald Trump – or his equivalent – was bound to appear. He was needed, and all those who were not his equivalent fell by the wayside.

The damaging and somewhat dangerous kerfluffle over turning presidential electors into turncoats, promulgated by 2016’s losers who can’t believe they have lost their greatest opportunity in a hundred years to finally install socialism in America, has gained strength and faux legitimacy with the connivance of socialist media companies and foreign influencers like George Soros. Their actions are irrational, but liberalism is a mental disorder, after all. Their efforts rely on denying the Constitution by confusing the polity.

Electing a president is not – repeat NOT – a “national” election: it is 50 STATE elections held on the same day. This is a key factor in protecting and ensuring state’s rights in our “federal” system. There are a number of such protections built into the constitution.

Best known is the structure of the Senate. Every state, regardless of population, has equal representation: 2 senators each. Originally, Senators were chosen, selected or elected by the legislatures of the several states. Their job was to represent the STATES and not the body politic – that job was reserved for the House of Representatives. Ours is a republic and not a democracy, per se. Our state representatives, chosen through democratic processes, are supposed to employ their wisdom and intelligence – presumably the qualities that caused their own election – to choose the two senators who would best represent their respective states.

Unfortunately, the need for statesmanship in senators has been overridden by partisanship, something the Founders warned against repeatedly. Corruption and anti-republicanism finally enabled progressives to promote the 17th Amendment making direct popular election of Senators part of the Constitution. Many states had made their legislative selection processes subject to a popular “primary” election. Selection problems had been leaving some states without Senate representation for long periods, so the 17th resolved that. But the change to popular election fulfilled a progressive dream of controlling the Senate through partisanship, weakening the federalism embodied in the constitution.

One need look only to the “work” of Harry Reid, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and other senate boobs to see that direct election is not the best solution. The rights and powers of states have suffered as a result.

In any event, holding 50 elections simultaneously in no way causes California’s big-majority election of the Clinton California electors, to make a particle of difference in the narrower majority election of Trump Michigan electors, or Pennsylvania electors or those of any other state. Adding up totals from 50 SEPARATE elections is a complete red herring: meaningless and meant to confuse. News organizations should stop doing that.

They might as well add up the votes in 435 House elections and worry about who got the larger total in those 435 separate elections: just as meaningless. Presidential electors are running in STATE elections – 50 of them. Adding up their totals is simple-minded, obfuscatory, Progressive bullshit.