Hillary's Strange Response to The New Zealand/Sri Lanka Tragedies...

.
.
After the New Zealand Mosque attack that claimed 29 lives, Hillary Clinton expressed sympathy for the “global Muslim community” and wished for an end to “racism" & “Islamophobia," as well as for the universal condemnation of white supremacy.

In response to the Muslim attack on Christians attending Easter service in Sri Lanka, that took over 200 lives, she expressed no specific sympathy for the global Christian community, nor an end to Muslim supremacy, nor an end to the ongoing war against Western civilization, let alone calling for the universal condemnation of "Islamic terrorism."

Hillary Clinton DIDN’T treat the two incidents the SAME, although given the magnitudes of the two events (29 dead in New Zealand & over 200 dead in Sri Lanka), she probably SHOULD'VE been more excised over the Sri Lankan incident, BUT instead, she was clearly more outraged over the New Zealand incident, almost certainly because it fit the vile Anglo-American Globalist/One Worlder agenda that our political-media class continues to support.
.

Could the Jill Stein Recount Really Shed Light on Massive Voting Irregularities?...

Maybe the DNC got suckered...hard to tell, YET, but early indications are showing that in Michigan's largest county (Wayne), which votes heavily Democratic, as many as 59% of the ballots may be improper and unable to be counted! (https://www.hermancain.com/major-problem-with-detroits-ballots-votes)

No wonder Pennsylvania looked to shut down the recount with a hastily pressed "deadline." ALL the more reason to scrutinize PA...especially eastern PA (ie. Philly) where previous accusations of numerous voter issues have been routine.

What the ongoing recounts are uncovering is not as much outright voter fraud, but voting "irregularities," like many ballots being counted twice.

As badly needed as a full audit of the Federal Reserve is, a full investigation into our entire electoral system, from the local level up, seems even more necessary.

The shock of Democratic insiders and media people seems NOT because they were surprised by Trump's vote totals, but that they seem to have BELIEVED that they had this one safely "in the bag" (stolen. Most of the "insiders" seemed to believe it was "already won."

Apparently a few local election officials underestimated the amount of electoral malfeasance that would be necessary.

Jill Stein's targeting a few usually reliably Democratic swing states for her targeted recount, should open the door to a nationwide recount and reassessment of the election.

The primary issue should be reforming this to the extent it can never happen again and with the GOP of 31 State Houses they're just one state legislature away from being able to force the strictest of reforms. Right after reform must come arrests of those directly involved in any demonstrable malfeasance.

Jill Stein may have slipped a poison pill to the DNC & "the Clinton machine," and in the process done a LOT to bolster some apparently much needed electoral reform.

Can Trump Win?

This is being written the night before the Election of 2016, but I’ve been mulling this over this past week.

Can Donald J. Trump actually win this election?

This is an unprecedented and historic election precisely because it seems to have delivered exactly what America’s electorate deserves; a “Reality TV Election!”

That’s what we’ve had, a year-long Reality TV election with the most outrageous candidates from BOTH major Parties winding up in this “steel cage death match” that will mercifully end tomorrow...or maybe within the following week...or month...or?

Donald Trump has taken on the mantle of the prototypical “In-Your-Face New Yorker.” He’s a billionaire businessman and real estate developer who talks like and connects with Blue Collar Americans.

As a result, he’s alienated both “cheap-labor” (Pro-In-Sourcing) Republicans and “cheap vote” (Pro-ILLEGAL-Immigration) Democrats...and rightly so. BOTH of those groups are and have long been solidly anti-American.

The Clintons are not merely “dishonest political opportunists who’d sell out their own families for a buck,” they embody virtually everything wrong with our existing pro-globalist, anti-American political-media class.

Meanwhile Donald Trump seems an absurd choice to represent the “America 1^st, anti-globalist” American working class. He’s also let his mouth and his late-night tweeting take him off message. By mid-September, Trump’s chances seemed very dim, at best.

However, as America’s globalist (fully owned, bought and paid for by global conglomerates) media openly campaigned for Hillary, with CNN’s Jake Tapper sitting on the Board of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), while CNBC’s chief Washington correspondent John Harwood collaborated with the Clinton team on what to ask GOPe candidate Jeb Bush. WikiLeaks released emails from John Podesta that showed Harwood asking the Clinton campaign to help him brainstorm interview questions to ask Jeb Bush.

On Sunday morning, a newly-released email from Wikileaks, dated September 21, 2015, showed Harwood consulting Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta on questions to ask former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. “What should I ask Jeb in Speakeasy interview tomorrow?”

John Harwood insists he “did nothing wrong.” (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/06/wikileaks-cnbcs-john-harwood-asked-podesta-interview-jeb-bush/)

That’s an outright LIE!

That collusion is very WRONG.

What he most likely meant is that he didn’t do anything that hasn’t been routine for a very long time, which only shows how nefarious and underhanded our Corporate media really is.

It’s hard to put much faith in the many media-manipulated polls, changing day-to-day depending on the sampling they use, more Democrats here, more independents and unaffiliateds there, etc.

BUT now, on the eve of the Election, Nate Silver who predicted a perfect 51/51 (all 50 States + the District of Columbia) in 2008 and 50/51 in 2012, now says that Hillary Clinton is “Just one state away from losing the election.” Of course, this is the SAME Nate Silver who claimed that Trump had absolutely no shot at winning the GOP Primaries back in January of 2016.

Silver says, “We show a three-point lead nationally for Clinton, 2-1 favorite. The electoral college map is less solid for Clinton than it was for Obama four years ago, where four years ago we had Obama ahead in states totaling 320 some electoral votes. Clinton has 270 so one state away from potentially losing the Electoral College...” (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/11/06/nate-silver-clinton-one-state-away-losing-electoral-college/)

The problem with this year’s polling is that there seems to be a hidden Trump vote, with many Trump supporters reluctant to divulge their choice and subject themselves to media’s ridicule.

Is that phenomenon real?

If it is, will it be enough?

The “Only poll that counts” starts tomorrow morning.

We’ll know soon enough.

Is Arrogance a Qualification for National Office?...

A friend recently remarked, “We need an arrogant President to deal with ISIS. Obama is too nice. The DONALD is arrogant but too thin skin to be President. Vote Hilary 2016.”
(DB)

My response is: No DB, arrogance is ALWAYS a flaw, NEVER a virtue. I'll admit that Trump earned some of his arrogance (“It ain’t bragging IF you can back it up,” even though arrogance is never pretty), along with his billions, but Bill and Hillary did nothing more than win a few popularity contests (elections).

Bill Clinton got into Harvard on a "geographic preference" (he was, "The smartest hillbilly in the hollers"), Hillary (gender preferences), Obama (race and national origin preferences....yes, he applied to at least Occidental College as a student from Indonesia) and yes, G W Bush (Donor Preferences)...the SAME. All of them were on the receiving end of various preference programs.

Hillary, like Obama, is wholly unable to deal with the ISIS threat. Benghazi proved that.

I don't think many Democrats really understand the actual appeal of BOTH Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (his AIN'T "socialism"). They're BOTH seen as "Thumbs in the eye" of our failed political class.

Sure, Bernie turned out to be a fraud...hell, he was tossed out of a commune in New Hampshire for failing to pull his weight, so who couldn't see that coming?

Trump is NOT popular because he’s widely seen as a great leader, but because he's merely NOT "one of them"...the political class.

For many, right now, that's enough.

Arrogance and the Presidency

A friend recently remarked, “We need an arrogant President to deal with ISIS. Obama is too nice. The DONALD is arrogant but too thin skin to be President. Vote Hilary 2016.”

DB

.

.

My response is: No DB, arrogance is ALWAYS a flaw, NEVER a virtue. I'll admit that Trump earned some of his arrogance (“It ain’t bragging IF you can back it up,” even though no amount of arrogance is very pretty), along with his billions, but Bill and Hillary did nothing more than win a few popularity contests (elections).

Bill Clinton got into Harvard on a "geographic preference" (he was, "The smartest hillbilly in the hollers"), Hillary (gender preferences), Obama (race and national origin preferences...yes, he applied to at least Occidental College as a student from Indonesia) and yes, G W Bush (Donor Preferences)...the SAME. All of them were on the receiving end of various preference programs.

Hillary, like Obama, is wholly unable to deal with the ISIS threat. Benghazi proved that.

I don't think many Democrats really understand the actual appeal of BOTH Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (his AIN'T "socialism”). They were BOTH "Thumbs in the eye" of our failed political class.

Sure, Bernie turned out to be a fraud...hell, he was tossed out of a commune in New Hampshire for failing to pull his weight, so who couldn't see that coming?

Trump is NOT popular because he’s widely seen as a great leader, merely because he’s NOT "one of them"...the political class.

For many, right now, that's enough.

Hillary Clinton; America’s Angela Merkel

Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton - Birds of a Feather

Since the “Rape of Cologne,” not only Germany, but ALL of Europe is in an uproar over what is perceived to be a policy of “De-Europeanization” for Europe. Sweden, France, Belgium and England have all had their own major problems with Muslim invaders who are openly seeking to transform Europe into “Eurabia,” a part of a greater global Islamic Caliphate.

The failed economic and social policies of the globalist Left have resulted in the rise of the Right in Europe, which SHOULD BE good news for BOTH America and Russia.

Russia, under Vladimir Putin has strongly resisted Western globalism – a U.S.-led global hegemony.

America’s government must ultimately get on board with that, because the bulk of the American people already reject any kind of global hegemony. They are right to reject that...and they are NOT alone.

In the midst of this European rebellion against Western globalism, Germans are currently attempting to bring treason charges against the chancellor over her migration policy.

“The Federal Prosecutors office in Karlsruhe, Germany, has received over 400 letters calling for it to open an investigation into Chancellor Merkel, the elected leader of the German government for high treason,” reported Breitbart last October. “The complaints cite the chancellor’s decision to open the borders of the nation to all comers in September, since when they claim ‘an unhindered flow of refugees have poured into Germany.'”

“Under German law, anyone who attempts to affect change to the German republic or damage the constitutional order by force or threat of force is guilty of high treason.”

Such an outcome would be welcome. What Merkel’s Islamization of Europe amounts to is “the greatest crime against humanity,” since the Nazi Holocaust and the Red Russian desecration of the real Russian people – the “White Russians.”

What’s more, Merkel will be but a fine start, many, MANY others will have to ultimately have to be held to account for supporting the Crime AGAINST Humanity that is Western Globalism.

So, today in 2016, America is faced with an election over exactly THIS issue.

Which side of history do we wish to be on? Do we want to side with those who support this greatest Crime Against Humanity, or will we side with LIBERTY - which is rooted in nationalism, individualism and private property rights?

Donald Trump not only predicted England’s BREXIT, he wisely supported it.

How tone deaf, how committed to the wrong side of history s Hillary Clinton?

Consider that when asked about world leaders she admired most, she heaped gushing praise on Germany’s failed leader Angela Merkel saying; “Well, I have to say that I highly admire Angela Merkel. I’ve known Angela since the 1990s, she and I actually appeared on a German TV show together,” Clinton responded. “I have spent personal time with her. She is, I think, a really effective strong leader and really right now the major leader in Europe, not just in Germany.”

Angela Merkel has been a willing and devoted stooge of the Brussels-led European Union (EU), an EU that is, thankfully, faltering badly. Today, there are at least 6 European nations that have populations even more opposed to the EU than Great Britain. Right now the people of, France, Italy, Sweden, Greece, Spain and yes, Germany all very strongly oppose the EU.

This tide cannot be held back. What we’re witnessing now is the last peaceful attempt to put down these Globalist Bolsheviks. After this comes waves of bloodshed.

This group showed what they are with the “Rape of Russia,” when the Bolshevik “Reds” committed the world’s worst atrocities on the peaceful, hard-working “White Russian” people. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror)

So, what does Hillary Clinton feel about the face of modern global Bolshevism? "I just find her to be an incredibly important person in the world today and I look to her to see how she’s managed it"

Yes, in her own words, Hillary Rodham Clinton would emulate Germany’s Angela Merkel.

Enough said.

THIS is...Interesting

Gary Johnson (L) and William Weld (R)...CAN These Guys Gain Traction?

I think everyone knows that the current race for President is about as popular as a contest between a rat and a snake.

BOTH major Party candidates have what appears to be serious personality disorders.

Beyond that, much of the electorate is hopelessly polarized. Many, like myself would never even consider voting for Hillary Clinton, any more than I would consider voting for Jeb (or any other) Bush.

So, today, we have a very different electorate than we did a quarter century ago...and the major political Parties haven't caught up.

They probably don't WANT to "catch up," because none of the news is good for them.

Today, a large (at least 35%) and growing segment of the electorate is Independent...NOT aligned with either major Party.

According to a recent Politico poll, "Fifty-five percent favor having an independent candidate challenge the Democratic front-runner and presumptive Republican nominee for president. An unprecedented 91 percent of voters 28 or younger favor having an independent on the ballot, and 65 percent of respondents are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.

"According to Data Targeting’s ballot test, an independent candidate would start off with 21 percent of the vote."

A Fox News survey released Thursday found Clinton leading overall with 39 percent support, followed by Donald Trump at 36 percent and Johnson at 12 percent, but among independents, Trump leads, at 32 percent, followed by Johnson, at 23, and Clinton, at 22. So, according to some polls Gary Johnson (the Libertarian candidate) has a real shot at gaining ground as they garner more media attention. (http://www.zerohedge.com/…/libertarian-candidate-gary-johns…)

Many voters haven't made up their minds yet and it seems that as many Democrats revile Hillary as Republicans detest Trump. Where will such voters go?

Will they "Hold their noses and vote Party," OR will they look elsewhere?

Libertarian candidates are also surging in some Senate races, most notably Missouri and Minnesota. (http://editions.lib.umn.edu/…/libertarian-candidates-surgi…/)

Personally I HAVE and would love to vote Libertarian, BUT I'd have to (1) See that candidate as having a good chance to actually win (this election is too important) and (2) I would NOT vote in any manner that might aid Hillary Clinton. How many others feel that way...or the reverse? How many others just couldn't vote for either major Party candidate?

THAT is Gary Johnson's and William Weld's opportunity. I sincerely hope they make the best of it!