Jill Stein: Agent Provocateur by Peter Burrows 12/17/16

I was told months ago by a number of my confidential sources, and I have hundreds of them, that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was a clandestine Trump operative. I scoffed at such an absurdity, but it's looking more and more like they were right and I was wrong.

Just look at the evidence. First, if all the Stein voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had voted for Hillary Clinton, Old Bubba would be now be First Gentleman in Waiting. Secondly, even though she had no chance of winning, Stein asked for a recount in those three states. This was a devastatingly subversive move.

Had the recounts been allowed to proceed, evidence of Democratic Party/Clinton Campaign voting irregularities in Michigan and Pennsylvania would have surfaced like a dead carp. Wisconsin, where the recount was completed, actually gave Trump an extra 131 votes. Nothing suspicious from the heavily Democratic Milwaukee County, which a cynic would say reflects the clean-up efforts of the battle-hardened Scott Walker team.

Michigan, however, is a different story. Detroit's Wayne County is a Democratic stronghold and always goes big for the Democrat candidate. This election was no different, but the Wayne County total was just not enough to prevent a Trump victory. They tried. And that's where Jill baby's Trumpian hand is showing.

She complained that Michigan had both election irregularities and laws making it difficult to verify election results. Sure enough, the Huffington Post reported that Gǣabout 60 percent of precincts in DetroitGǥ couldn't do a recount because there was a discrepancy between the number of registered voters and the number of ballots counted by the optical scanners. GǣAn obscure provision of Michigan law prevents a recount in those circumstances.Gǥ

I don't know what that Gǣobscure provisionGǥ is, but it sounds like it protects people who steal votes, probably Detroit Republicans. Sure.

The Detroit News reported that Michigan's recount problems Gǣwere the worst in Detroit, where discrepancies meant officials couldn't recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60 percent, and two-thirds of those precincts had too many votes.Gǥ

The Huffington Post also wrote, GǣA Detroit election official reported that 87 of the city's optical scanners broke on Election Day, which may have led to the over-or-under-counting of ballots.Gǥ

Optical scanners can break? Of course they can! All at once, too, and by the dozens!! Detroit's problems, you see, are due to mechanical failures, not human error or -- GASP! -- fraudulent vote counting. And Gǣunder-countingGǥ ?? I wonder if that means Hillary was supposed to get 150% of the registered voters but only got 110%, or something like that.

We'll probably never know. A judge found Jill Stein didn't have standing as an aggrieved party and halted the Michigan recount. Mission accomplished, though.

Pennsylvania has tougher recount standards and a recount was never started there, which is too bad. It would have been interesting to see how 2016 compared to 2012. In the 2012 election, 59 voting precincts in the Philadelphia region went 100% for Obama, not even one vote for Romney.

The virtual impossibility of this pales in comparison to the chutzpah the Democratic Party machine showed in reporting such incredulous results. (Chutzpah is Yiddish slang for gall, brazenness, or as I prefer, Gǣballs.Gǥ)

So, thanks to Jill Stein, the integrity of our voting system has been called into question in a way that exposes the Democrats as the biggest vote thieves in America, and, oh, the hypocrisy! If the Republicans were engaged in such shenanigans, the Democrats and their media slaves would be going crazy, and rightly so.

Instead, what we hear today are complaints about how the Russians -- the Russians!!-- are endangering the integrity of our elections by allegedly hacking into Democratic email accounts and publicizing them. Seems to me that, if so, the Russians were just adding transparency to our election process, and transparency is something Democrats say they are especially big on.

Of course, the GǣtransparencyGǥ revealed a little bit of the Democratic Party's dirty laundry, and that is blamed for Trump getting too many suburban and rural votes to be overcome by inner-city vote theft. As Hugh Hewitt's book title says, GǣIf It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat.Gǥ Actually, Hugh, they can but they can't cheat ENOUGH.

Thank you, Jill Stein! I hope you find happiness in President Trump's administration. (You heard it here first.)