Trump: I Won the Popular Vote; Millions Voted Illegally

trumpadultFor the past three weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has been looking very different than he did as a candidate. His rhetoric has been measured and largely conciliatory. His choices of administration officials have been more thoughtful than many were expecting. He’s even been walking back his most provocative campaign promises (an insult to his base, but a relief to many others).

In fact, in contrast with the unhinged Left, who’ve been busy focusing their angst on doomsday predictions and delegitimizing the electoral process, he has come across as quite reasonable, and even — yes — presidential.

One also has to credit Hillary Clinton. In defeat, she has conducted herself quite well. She delivered a graceful concession speech that offered words of unity and support, and she hasn’t contributed to the fears and hysteria put forth by her base. At least, that had been the case until it was revealed last week that Clinton’s campaign is participating in the Wisconsin recount, started by Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

The recount, of course, is a political stunt designed to stoke doubt in the results of the presidential election. Whether it’s being done to nurture the base or increase political fundraising, it’s a dishonest effort and a big waste of time and money. The fate of Wisconsin wouldn’t change the outcome of the election anyway. Neither would an increase in the popular vote (which Clinton already won by nearly 2 million votes). The fact that the Clinton campaign is taking part in this pointless, divisive exercise is really quite remarkable.

With Trump seemingly having turned over a new leaf, one might have expected him to just sit back and let the lunacy of his opposition play itself out in the public eye. After all, their foolishness only makes him look better.

Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. He instead took a page out of his old campaign playbook by weighing in on the controversy with an outrageous, patently false statement of his own — one that will assuredly take the heat off his opponents by generating a media firestorm around himself.

Sunday on Twitter, Trump tweeted: In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

Yes, the President-elect of the United States just threw out a totally unsubstantiated and painfully reckless statement to undermine the very election process that made him the leader of the free world. There were not millions of illegal voters, and Trump did not win the popular vote.

Why did he say it? Because his notoriously fragile ego simply won’t allow him to concede that more people in this country voted for Hillary Clinton than him — a fact of no electoral significance.

Remarks like this, and the inclination of his loyalists to rationalize them, were embarrassing and undignified when Trump was merely a candidate. Now that he is the president-elect, and his words carry far more weight than before, such rhetoric can no longer be glossed over. It shouldn’t be excused or normalized. Our country needs an adult leading it…not a thin-skinned man-child.

I’ve been highly critical of Trump, and I did not vote for the man, but he is my president. I want him to be a good one. I want him to make me and the nation proud. It should go without saying that a good start would be to finally knock off the casual lying and the delegitimizing of our country’s electoral process.

The election is over. So is amateur hour and all of the nauseating political relativism. It’s time to grow up…or at least learn how to act like a grown-up when people are watching.

kindle sale

America Decides The Last Four Years Never Happened

“This will be the most important election in our lifetime.” We hear that phrase over and over again every four years when it comes time to vote for our president. Most people who’ve uttered those words probably believed them to be absolutely true at the time. Hindsight, however, has suggested that such mindsets are sometimes overly dramatic.

After all, George W. Bush won re-election in 2004 primarily because the electorate feared putting a seemingly anti-war liberal like John Kerry in the White House during the height of the War on Terror. Despite the campaign rhetoric, however, we found out starting in 2009 that there’s really only one significant difference between the two political parties when it comes to dealing with terrorists abroad: Media crucifixion if you’re a Republican president, and media praise if you’re a Democratic president.

I wish I could convince myself that one day I’ll be able to look back on the election night results from 2012 and think the same thing. I wish that I could convince myself that Obama’s continued stewardship of the economy won’t be as devastating for the future of this country as I’ve been fearing for four years. I wish I could believe, as I watched my children eat breakfast this morning, that they’ll have the same kind of opportunities and promising future that Ronald Reagan paved out for me when I was their age.

Unfortunately, I can’t ignore the reality. Economic numbers don’t lie. We’ve gotten a taste of the vision President Obama has for this country. We know what is in store for us. This year really was different. Our country really was at a crucial tipping point. Our economic outlook really is an unmitigated disaster.

Americans had an extremely important decision to make: We, as a country, could either keep our foot on the gas pedal and drive right on off the fiscal cliff, or we could slam on the brakes and hope that we skidded to a stop before we reached the edge of that cliff.

The problem is that too many Americans, in the end, didn’t even realize the car they were in was moving. They were much more enamored with the shiny ornament along its hood.

For the last four years, national polls told us that the most important issue to voters was the economy. Mitt Romney bet his entire candidacy on that premise, and the strategy made sense. After all, Obama’s first term in office gave us the worst economic recovery since World War 2. It gave us chronically high unemployment and anemic economic growth. It gave us record gas prices. It saddled our children with so much debt that they’ll be carrying it around with them for the rest of their lives. It gave us exceedingly expensive healthcare, and one in six Americans living in poverty. It gave us a record number of Americans on food stamps. The list goes on and on.

It seemed like a winning environment for the Republican candidate. What Mitt Romney deeply underestimated, however, is how easily Americans are distracted.

While Romney was laying out his strong, serious case for real economic recovery, jobs, and getting our fiscal house in order, President Obama was dishing out an emotionally-charged divide and conquer strategy. He took a hammer to the electorate, pulled out the shattered pieces that belonged in key voting demographics, and pitted them against the rest. He stoked envy through class warfare. He demagogued immigration reform with fears of racism. He demagogued Medicare reform to scare old people. He and his party made up phony controversies like the War on Women. Perhaps most importantly, he built resentment by portraying Mitt Romney not as an ideological foe or political opponent, but as a monster – a man responsible for a woman’s cancer-death; a greedy man responsible for ruining the lives of countless plant workers; a man who wants to take away women’s rights; a man that voters needed to seek “revenge” against.

In the end, the economy was marginalized as background static, barely audible above the loud roar of a deeply divided, emotional electorate.

And when an election comes down to emotion rather than a referendum, it goes back to the basics. It becomes just another election. Red states stay red, blue states stay blue, and the presidency is decided by the usual handful of swing-states.

It was the most important election of our lifetime, but a good portion of the electorate sure didn’t act like it. In fact, overall turnout was actually down significantly from four years ago.

While part of the problem has clearly been that most people simply don’t understand just how disastrous things look for our country’s long-term viability (and the media can be thanked for that), they weren’t oblivious the president’s poor handling of the economy. Poll after poll showed that a significant majority of voters believed Mitt Romney was better suited than Barack Obama to fix the economy (the number one issue, according to them). Yet the majority voted for Obama.

Many conservatives believe that the welfare-state is to blame. They believe that the number of Americans dependent on government, and looking for a handout, is what tipped the scales in favor of Obama. While I recognize that government dependency is certainly a serious concern, I don’t think it’s what ultimately made the difference in the election.

It’s the division that made the difference. It’s the demagoguery that made the difference. It’s the distraction that made the difference.

I saw it working with people I know personally – people who I thought should know better. They wholeheartedly bought into the shiny pieces of foil thrown their way by the president and the media. I know women who actually believed that, if elected, Mitt Romney was going to take away their birth control pills. I know people who honestly believed that Mitt Romney was a racist.

It would have been humorous if the fate of the country wasn’t at stake.

The trash that the president shoveled made a lot of people forget that the last four years ever happened. So much so that Obama was successfully able to run as a challenger and not a sitting president (with the media’s help), thus escaping much of the accountability for the current state of the country. He played the Bush card for four straight years and it ended up remaining a winning hand. And of course, he’s always had his glowing personality to charm the electorate into forgiving him.

So where are we at, now that President Obama has been re-elected?

Obama will most certainly interpret his victory, as narrow as it was, as a mandate. Sure, he’ll talk about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle again for a few weeks, but it won’t lead anywhere. Re-election was a permission-slip for him to proceed with the same destructive policies he’s been burying the country under for the past four years. Like in 2010, the ‘sleeping giant’ will be awoken once again. We’ll see a resurgence of the Tea Party or a similar movement, probably around the time Obamacare is fully implemented. There will be loud public unrest in response to our freedoms being stripped away and our wealth disappearing. The president’s approval ratings will tank again, and the division will continue. It will largely be a repeat of the first four years, only with much more borrowed money on the line.

The most disheartening thing about Obama’s re-election is the reality that we invited this upon ourselves. We didn’t know the real Obama in 2008. He was the cult of personality. He was the guy with the million dollar smile. But we know him now. And by rewarding miserable failure with another four years in office, we’ve wagered American exceptionalism, American solvency, and the American dream on a guy who has proven that he doesn’t believe in any of those things.

As Reverand Jeremiah Wright famously said, “Our chickens have come home to roost.”

Politics 101

I used to think that if the GOP could ever get a sufficient number of black Americans to leave the huge plantation known as the Democratic Party, liberals would never again win a presidential election. After all, I knew for a fact that the last Democrat to garner a majority of the white vote was Lyndon Johnson, and that was 48 years ago. But I recently discovered that there is an even larger hurdle to get over, and that, I’m sad to say, are female voters.

While I understand that roughly one in seven American females is black, the same holds true when it comes to the percentage of male voters. So, although I am rarely shocked, I must confess I was absolutely flummoxed when I went back and checked the statistics for every election since 1980 and found a gender gap that led me to reconsider the wisdom of the 19th Amendment. Now, I’m not one of those Neanderthals who thinks women should be kept barefoot and pregnant, but the evidence strongly suggests they shouldn’t be allowed to get too near a ballot box.

Scoff all you like, but consider the facts. In 1980, even after Jimmy Carter had overseen record inflation, record unemployment, record gas prices and seen to it that the Ayatollah Khomeini would be allowed to displace the Shah of Iran, women only gave Reagan a one-point edge over the incompetent incumbent, 46%-45%. Men favored Reagan 54% to 37%. Each group included enough ninnies to provide John Anderson with 7% of their votes.

In 1984, women wised up long enough to split their vote 56% for Reagan, 44% for Mondale, still falling short of men, who divided their vote 62%-37% for The Gipper.

In 1988, which was the last time that women favored the Republican, they went 50% for Bush, 49% for Dukakis, whereas men split 57%-41% for Bush.

In ’92, women gave Clinton 45%, Bush 37% and Perot 17%; men went 41% for Clinton, 38% for Bush, 21% for Perot.

In ’96, 54% of women went for Clinton, 38% for Dole, 7% for Perot, while men split 44% for Dole, 43% for Clinton and 10% for Perot.

In 2000, women went 54% for Gore, 43% for Bush, 2% for Ralph Nader; 53% of the male vote went to Bush, 42% to Gore and 3% for Nader.

In 2004, women naturally went for Kerry over Bush 51% to 48%; fortunately, men favored Bush 55% to 41%.

In 2008, both genders went crazy, but even then males split their vote 49% for Obama, 48% for McCain, while women, no doubt dazzled by Obama’s smile, provided him with a 13% margin, 56-43.

Most men, I believe, are willing to acknowledge that they are not very good at multi-tasking, asking for directions or talking about anything except sports and hunting. In the face of all this indisputable evidence, I don’t know why women can’t acknowledge that they simply aren’t at the top of their game when it comes to electing presidents.

Recent polls indicate that even in the upcoming election, which pits the totally inept, corrupt and two-faced, Obama against a challenger who is not only honest, successful and capable, but a faithful husband, a loving father, and who just happens to be taller and better-looking, women continue to confound by favoring Obama. What more do we need to know about their inadequacies when it comes to electing presidents?

If nothing else about Obama disturbs women, you would think that his general lack of machismo — he throws a ball like a girl — and his general smugness and vanity would be more than sufficient reasons for women to be turned off.

I mean, just a few months ago, he insisted with a straight face that there have only been two or three presidents who have been his equal when it comes to getting things accomplished. Then, just recently, after describing himself as the best friend that Israel has ever had in the Oval Office, he told a group of rabbis that he knew more about Judaism than any of the other presidents because he had studied it when he was a youngster. Now let us keep in mind that his earliest studies would have taken place in Indonesia, the largest Islamic nation in the world. One can easily imagine that those studies would have consisted of differentiating between the two most common types of Jews, those who are pigs and those who are monkeys.

His expertise when it comes to Judaism would have been news to John Adams and James Madison, who were both fluent in Hebrew. In fact, I find it annoying that in spite of the fact that in 2008 the Obamas suggested we all learn Spanish, the only language other than English, for which he requires the use of a Teleprompter in order to appear even slightly coherent, the only language in which Obama claims to be conversant is Indonesian. That hardly compares to the 12 presidents who could write and speak Latin, the 10 who knew Greek, the seven who were fluent in French and the five who spoke German. Herbert Hoover and his wife would often speak Mandarin Chinese when they didn’t want anyone eavesdropping.

Speaking of the man whose Native American name would have been Speaks with Forked Tongue, I was recently sent an enlightening email that finally explained what Obama means when he repeatedly tells us that his energy policy involves All of the Above. Quite literally, it means everything above ground (sun, wind, corn), but nothing below (oil, coal, natural gas).

When I read that 400 Spaniards missed a soccer match in Bucharest because they had mistakenly flown to Budapest, I couldn’t help thinking that if they had been Americans I would have wagered they were all Democrats.

Finally, it has annoyed me for the longest time that a great many conservative pundits joined the chorus of liberals who denounced anyone who dared to question Obama’s birthplace. Perhaps if I had heard them at least ponder why Obama has kept his college application, his earliest passport and his academic records, under lock and key, it wouldn’t have galled me quite as much. But after we recently discovered that in the biographical material he’d sent to his literary agent 20 years ago, Obama claimed he’d been born in Kenya, their continuing to insist he was hatched in Hawaii verges on lunacy.

I even heard one of these talk show hosts insist that Obama only mentioned Kenya in order to make himself appear more exotic, in the hope of hyping book sales.

Call me a cynic, but is there anyone out there who believes that when my new book, “Barack Obama, You’re Fired!” comes out, and my bio just happens to mention that I was born several thousand light years ago on Mars, these same loons will also give me a pass?

©2012 Burt Prelutsky. Send your comments to

Playing the Blame Game

When you look at the state of the nation, clearly someone is to blame. If you’re a Democrat, you blame Republicans. If you’re a Republican, you blame Democrats. If you’re Barack Obama, you blame George W. Bush. If you’re at least halfway sane, you blame Barack Obama and his stooges in Congress, in the EPA and the Department of Justice.

If you spend any time at all on the Internet, you have probably received the electoral map of the United States that tries to convince you that Obama’s re-election is a done deal. Fortunately, the map is all wet. For one thing, it concedes Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin and Indiana, to Obama. For another, it insists that Florida, Virginia and Ohio, are toss-up states, while I’m convinced they’re all going for Romney.

Frankly, the question that comes to mind is whether it was drawn up by Curly, Moe or James Carville. How is it that the mapmaker manages to ignore all the elections that have taken place since Obama was elected in 2008? How is it that no consideration is given to the fact that a mere two years into his term, the Democrats lost six seats in the Senate and 60 more in the House?

Why was no attention paid to the fact that Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, that a conservative Catholic won Anthony Weiner’s House seat and that Marco Rubio knocked off Charlie Crist? Shouldn’t it make any difference this November, that within the past two years, Republicans named Kasich, Christie, O’Donnell, Walker, Haslam, LePage, Corbett, Snyder, Brownback, Fallin, Mead, Martinez and Scott, all took over the governor’s mansions formerly held by Democrats in Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, New Mexico and Florida?

Are we supposed to assume that it makes no difference at all that, thanks to the 2010 census, while the liberal northeast has been losing House seats, and therefore Electoral College votes, the conservative southwest has been picking them up?

It doesn’t help Obama that he vetoed the Keystone pipeline, that he wasted nearly two years steamrolling ObamaCare through Congress, and that he squandered about a trillion dollars on a stimulus package that stimulated nothing, but helped cost us our triple-A credit rating.

You really think that Obama’s Department of Justice, with its record of turning a blind eye to blacks intimidating white voters and “Operation Fast & Furious,” is going to garner Obama support among independent voters? Forget about tying Obama to Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and William Ayers; Eric Holder is albatross enough.

Even people who have trouble balancing their checkbooks know that a $16 trillion dollar deficit and record unemployment are sucking the economy dry.

Obama is so desperate that he is running a TV ad that attempts to make out Bain Capital’s Mitt Romney to be the mustachioed villain in an old-fashioned melodrama, tossing widows, orphans and a few disgruntled steelworkers, out into the snow. The fact that Bain Capital, not having been either a major bundler for Obama’s campaigns or the UAW, couldn’t count on being bailed out with taxpayer dollars the way that Solyndra, GM and Chrysler, were, bears out the rewards and pitfalls of the capitalist system.

Only the lamebrains on the Left would try to make a case against an honest businessman by pointing out that he occasionally suffered a setback. Because the Left consists mainly of academics, state and federal bureaucrats, sluggards, media leeches and college kids, they have no actual concept of how the private sector works.

That’s why they fail to see that Bain could invest in a steel plant in good faith and nine years later, because of competition and circumstances, the plant could go bankrupt. At the same time, they fail to acknowledge that putting a free-spending Marxist in the Oval Office would inevitably lead, a scant three years later, to a nation’s being on the verge of bankruptcy.

Still, if you personally oppose a system that rewards risk takers and entrepreneurs, you might find life more to your liking in China, Cuba, Venezuela, France or Greece. A few of those locales even boast pleasant climates, perfect for cultivating citrus fruits and socialist fruitcakes.

A recent poll suggested that 46% of American leftists believe that rich people do the country no good. I suppose a case could be made if you exclude the businesses wealthy people create and develop; the paychecks they sign; the schools, museums and opera houses, they underwrite; the taxes they pay; and the medical research institutes they endow.

Now if they broke down those rich people by political affiliation, I just might go along with the crowd, because there’s very little societal good for which I could credit the wealthy likes of Warren Buffet, George Clooney, Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Bloomberg, Danny Glover, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, David Letterman, Bill Maher, Timothy Geithner, Michael Moore, Barack Obama and George Soros.

In the wake of Obama finally giving up the charade and coming out of the closet for same-sex marriage, I hear liberals making the claim that most Americans now favor it. If that were the case, you would think that at least one state out of 50 would have voted for it. Instead, the voters in 38 states have opposed it. In fact, the only places where it is legal are those states where either left-wing judges or state legislatures decided to cave in to homosexual hissy fits.

I have even heard liberals discount those 38 resounding defeats by insisting that some of those elections took place years ago, before America had reversed itself on the issue. Those knuckleheads naturally choose to ignore the recent election in North Carolina, where 61% of the voters chose to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. The indisputable fact is that it is mainly thanks to blacks, usually the most left-wing voting bloc in America, that homosexuals keep losing these elections.

There is a rumor floating around that Hillary Clinton might replace Joe Biden on the ticket. I don’t think that’s likely. First of all, I am not convinced that she would add to his vote total, whereas it would definitely cost Obama Biden’s vote. After all, the folks who adore Hillary already adore Obama. Two, I am convinced that Michelle despises Hillary, regarding her as a white hussy, and will never forgive her for giving rise to the “birther” movement during the 2008 primaries.

Even psychologically, it doesn’t make sense. By dumping Biden, Obama would be acknowledging that he might have made a mistake in naming him in the first place. He would also be sending an obvious signal that he actually needed Hillary’s help in order to win re-election. That doesn’t sound like the narcissist-in-chief so many of us have come to know and hate.

Finally, Biden has spent nearly four years proving his devotion to Obama. At times, when Obama gazes at his vice-president’s wagging tail, he’s probably reminded of the Cocker Spaniel he noshed on back in Indonesia.

Biden locked his lips on Obama’s derriere in 2008 and he hasn’t let loose since. The only display of public affection that even comes close is the one that Bill O’Reilly shows towards himself when he insists that at least half the letters he posts at the end of The Factor are from readers gushing about “Killing Lincoln.”

©2012 Burt Prelutsky. Send your comments to

The Best College in America

If you’re a liberal, you would probably insist, depending on which one you attended, that Harvard, Yale, Stanford or UC Berkeley, was the finest college or university in the country. If you went to Harvard, you would probably say, in the world.

If you were a conservative, you would probably vote for Hillsdale.

But I contend that far and away, the best one doesn’t even have a campus, an endowment fund or even a football team. In fact, it’s the one that people tend to ignore except once every four years. I’m referring to the Electoral College.

As a rule, the only time people even talk about it, they’re complaining that it should be abolished. But, as is nearly always the case, they happen to be wrong and the Founding Fathers were right.

Just as the geniuses who came up with the Constitution didn’t want the federal government to be able to lord it over the states, they also didn’t want a few larger states to lord it over the smaller ones. There is possibly nothing that makes a stronger case for those men having been divinely-inspired than Article Two of the Constitution, which declared that the presidency would not be determined by a popular vote.

Just as they sought balance by deciding that each state, whatever its population, would have two senators, they also wanted to avoid having a few large states controlling presidential elections. They had, after all, set out to create a republic, not a democracy.

So it is that Barack Obama could easily win the popular vote this November by taking such states as California, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts, by several million votes, but still wind up losing the election because his Republican opponent wins in places such as Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, Nevada, Florida, Michigan, Georgia, Kansas, Alaska, the Dakotas and the Carolinas, by anything from 10,000 to 50,000 votes.

If that happens, we can all be sure that the Democrats will whine about it and cry, “Foul!”

But how is it fair that a minority of 15 or 20 states should be able to impose their will on 30 or 35 others?

Although, the Electoral College generally reflects the popular vote, that’s not always the case. For instance, in 1876, Samuel J. Tilden received 250,000 more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, but lost the election by one electoral vote. In 1880, James Garfield only garnered 16,000 more votes than Winfield Hancock, but clobbered him in the College 214-155.

In 1884, Grover Cleveland narrowly squeaked by with a 25,000 vote margin, but he defeated James Blaine by 37 votes where it counted. However, when Cleveland ran for re-election in 1888, he wound up with 90,000 more votes than Benjamin Harrison, but lost in the Electoral College 233-168.

In 1960, JFK, thanks to typical left-wing hanky-panky in Texas and Illinois, wound up with 114,000 more votes (out of roughly 69,000,000 cast), but easily defeated Nixon in the College 303-219.

In 1968, Nixon only received a trifling 500,000 more votes than Humphrey (out of 73,000,000 cast), but buried him in the College election 301-191.

In 2000, in an election reminiscent of the ones that took place in 1876 and 1888, Al Gore took the popular vote 50,992,335 to George W. Bush’s 50,455,156, but Bush turned the tables in the Electoral College, defeating Gore 271-266.

Although I honestly believe that the men who created the Constitution were divinely-inspired, I wouldn’t want to suggest that God takes an active role in our elections. Otherwise, how to explain Barack Obama’s winding up in the Oval Office?

But, even if it’s merely a coincidence, I think it’s worth noting that in all three instances that the candidate who received fewer popular votes wound up being elected president, he just happened to be a Republican.

©2012 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write!

Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, postpaid.
Get both for just $39.90.
Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)