The left is already making post-election predictions

When you mosey around left-wing la-la land, you find the most amazing stories.  They are often baseless speculation founded on assumptions that rise out of false narratives. For example …

The Washington Post published a piece by Brian Klaas, who the newspaper describes as a Global Opinions contributor.  In real life, Klaas – who received a doctorate from Oxford University — is an assistant professor of global politics at the University College of London, where – according to his Washington Post thumbnail biography – he “focuses on democracy, authoritarianism, and American politics and foreign policy.

So you get the full sense of his political views, Klaas is author of “The Despot’s Apprentice: Donald Trump’s Attack on Democracy” and “The Despot’s Accomplice: How the West is Aiding and Abetting the Decline of Democracy.”  His mini bio says he is a “regular guest” on such media outlets as CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR and Bloomberg News.

Now that you know what this guy is, here was the headline of his contribution to the Post.

“We need to prepare for the possibility of Trump rejecting election results”

Since Klaas is an American expatriate, I am not sure who he means when he says that “we” have to prepare.  I suppose he means all the radical left-wingers who are still traumatized in their disbelief that Donald Trump actually won the election.  Perhaps he is a member of the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement Abroad.

Here is the gist of his article.

“We don’t know whether Trump will be reelected. But, as we head toward November, you have to ask yourself: If he loses, would it be more surprising if Trump graciously accepts defeat and congratulates his opponent or if he claimed to be the victim of a rigged election and a “deep state” plot?

The answer seems clear.”

That answer to Klaas’ rhetorical question is not only NOT clear; it is totally unknown.  His entire article is based on baseless speculation driven by a deep-seated political bias.  The article is not meant to educate or enlighten.  It is intended to emotionally gin up the anti-Trump base.  And what IS clear is that that is the reason the Post published it.

Klaas states that Trump’s concerns about rigged elections are “lies.”  He says that “The evidence is clear. Voter fraud is a minuscule problem in the United States.”  Once again Klaas resorts to left-wing arrogance and elitism to offer his opinion as factually “clear.”

Furthermore, his contention that election fraud is a “minuscule problem in the United States” is nothing less than the bogus claim of the authoritarian left.  It is what all despots claim about their elections in such places as Russia, North Korea and Iran.  As a person who has investigated vote fraud professionally over many election cycles, I can attest to a and unacceptably high level of election fraud and corruption.  It has literally stolen public offices.

To refute any notion of election corruptions, Klaas offers this commentary solo from the bass section of the progressive choir.  He rejects out-of-hand the accusation that illegal immigrants cast illegal votes (virtually exclusively for Democrat candidates, by the way).  According to Klaas, there is no way illegal immigrants would expose themselves (figuratively) to being caught by participating in an election.

First, such activity poses almost no threat – zero – of being caught, prosecuted or deported.  Hell, those who are arrested for committing violent crimes are part of the Democrat’s catch-and-release program.  In addition, such “voters” do not vote in their own name.  They often serve as surrogates for the deceased.  That is why the urban Democrat political machines fight so fiercely against purging the roles of the dead and the ineligible.

As if that is not bad enough, examination of the voting rolls in many urban jurisdictions have revealed the names of illegal aliens who are illegally registered to vote – and actually voted in the past.  And it is more than a hand full.

Despite an impressive resume of academic achievement, Klaas is not an educated educator – at least not reflected in his Post piece.  He writes and opines like a political hack whose most obvious skill is uncritically parroting left-wing talking points.

I am not sure why, but Klaas has placed Trump’s desire to get American workers back on the job as supportive of his headline theme – but he picked up that gauntlet, too.  It is a non-related issue that has no relevancy to Klaas’ central thesis.  It is more consistent with his overarching and irrational I-hate-Trump theme.

In his commentary, Klaas lamented the folks in Michigan who were exercising the constitutional rights of assembly and speech to have the state opened again.  His concern stemmed from the fact that some of the folks were carrying guns – a right that is legal in the “open carry” state of Michigan.  Klaas’ point – as irrelevant as it is – would have been more impressive if someone had actually fired off one of those guns.  But no.  It was all very peaceful.

The good professor contends that “With any president, an attempt to delegitimize elections that your side loses can be destabilizing. But with Trump, it’s dangerous.”  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Klaas should know that the loser often complains about the results – especially in close elections or where the popular vote was trumped (no pun intended) by the electoral vote.

Klaas needs to remember that his American soulmates complained that President George W. Bush was not the legitimate President of the United States – and many are still proffering that old canard.  Conspiratorial theory-types (of which I am not one) believed that President Obama was ineligible for the presidency by the condition of his birth.  In the case of Trump, the voices claiming his illegitimacy have even included such high-level political adversaries as Congresswoman Maxine Waters and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  What Klaas sees as a danger to the Republic is more-or-less business as usual – especially in these divisive times.

Only a publication prone to peddling political propaganda would publish such intellectually vapid political trash as that offered up by the questionably learned Professor. It is not so much his personal viewpoint, but the intellectual weakness of his arguments and the sophomoric style in which he presents his strident and extreme opinions.  If Klaas does – or ever did – possess superior intellectual capability, it is not reflected in the bit of pretentious political propaganda that was published by the Washington Post.

So, there ‘tis.