You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘election’ tag.

To date, no evidence exists of President Donald Trump’s notional collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

Earlier this week, Trump tweeted:

He was referring to the spurious dossier on his alleged activities in Russia, which emerged in January before his inauguration.

One year ago, Hillary wished herself a happy birthday:

(Be sure to read the comments to that tweet: both Hillary and the Bush family shut down investigations into paedophilia. You will also discover why Chelsea doesn’t go to church.)

This year, Julian Assange retweeted the birthday greeting.

2015: Dems’ Pied Piper plan

Hillary was certain she would win. This is because the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had a campaign plan involving what they called Pied Piper Candidates from the Republican Party.

The plan was revealed in the Podesta emails that WikiLeaks dumped last year. The email number is 1120 and it is dated April 23, 2015. The email came from someone on Hillary’s campaign team:

Below please find the agenda for tomorrow morning’s 8:00 AM ET Strategy Call.

There is a memo for the DNC discussion attached to this email for your review ahead of the call.

AGENDA:

1. Clinton Cash update

2. DNC plan (see attached memo)

3. Phones / Pool plan

Thank you!

The Daily Caller has a link to the memo (PDF).

This is what it says about Pied Piper Candidates:

2016: Paul Manafort, Trump campaign manager

When Trump was the last man standing during the Republican primary season early in May 2016, he still needed to ensure he got delegates at the party’s convention in July.

In order to get the delegates, he appointed a new campaign manager in June: Paul Manafort. Manafort is a political consultant — a ‘fixer’ — as well as a lawyer and lobbyist. He has had clients in the United States and internationally. He has worked on several GOP presidential campaigns, dating back to the 1970s with Gerald Ford.

A few weeks after Manafort completed his work in securing the necessary number of Republican delegates for Trump — an arduous task, by the way — news emerged about work he had done in Ukraine. Thinking it would cast a shadow on Trump’s campaign, Manafort resigned. Kellyanne Conway replaced him.

This year, Manafort has been one of the people investigated by Robert Mueller and his team for Russian collusion. From Wikipedia (emphases mine):

On January 19, 2017, the eve of the Trump’s presidential inauguration, it was reported that Manafort was under active investigation by multiple federal agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Director of National Intelligence and the financial crimes unit of the Treasury Department.[85] Investigations were said to be based on intercepted Russian communications as well as financial transactions.[86] It was later confirmed that Manafort was wiretapped by the FBI “before and after the [2016] election … including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.” The surveillance of Manafort began in 2014, before Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of United States.[87]

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed on May 17, 2017 by the Justice Department to oversee the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters, took over the existing criminal probe involving Manafort.[84][9][88] On July 26, 2017, the day after Manafort’s United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing and the morning of his planned hearing before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, FBI agents at Mueller’s direction conducted a “no-knock” pre-dawn raid on Manafort’s Alexandria, Virginia home, using a search warrant to seize documents and other materials, in regards to the Russian meddling in the 2016 election.[89][90] Manafort has reportedly been told by Mueller’s office prosecutors that they plan to indict him.[91]

The pre-dawn FBI raid was particularly vicious. I heard on a talk show from someone close to Manafort that his wife was scared witless, and that’s putting it mildly.

Manafort has also had to appear before two Senate committees:

In May 2017, in response to a request of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), Manafort submitted over “300 pages of documents…included drafts of speeches, calendars and notes from his time on the campaign” to the Committee “related to its investigation of Russian election meddling”.[92] On July 25 he met privately with the committee.[93]

A congressional hearing on Russia issues, including the Trump campaign-Russian meeting, was scheduled by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for July 26, 2017. Manafort was scheduled to appear together with Trump Jr., while Kushner was to testify in a separate closed session.[94] After separate negotiations, both Manafort and Trump Jr. met with the committee on July 26 in closed session and agreed to turn over requested documents. They are expected to testify in public eventually.[95]

Personally, I do not think Manafort has done anything wrong in connection with Trump or his campaign.

The Podesta brothers, Russia and Manafort

If you were one of my readers last year, you probably remember my mentions of John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign supremo. The Daily Caller reported in November 2016 that he wrote the memo which included the Pied Piper Candidate strategy.

John’s brother is Tony.

The two founded the Podesta Group in 1988. It went by different names until 2007, when the firm adopted its current name. The company does a lot of work in politics as well as the corporate arena, both in the US and elsewhere in the world.

Now it looks as if Paul Manafort worked for the Podesta Group a few years ago.

Wikipedia tells us:

As of October 2017, the Podesta Group is under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for potentially violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) in the course of its work for the ECMU. The Podesta Group was one of six lobbying firms that participated in a 2012–2014 public relations campaign organized by former Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 chairman Paul Manafort on behalf of the ECMU and Ukraine’s pro-Russia Party of Regions; the campaign was designed to improve Ukraine’s standing among Western audiences as a possible prelude to Ukrainian membership in the European Union (EU). A Podesta Group spokesman denied any wrongdoing.[14]

More about this below.

One wonders whether Manafort conveniently happened to work for Trump so that he would become the Pied Piper Candidate. Manafort could then resign, having done his bit for the Democrats.

It is too early to say either way.

———————————————–

On Tuesday, October 24, two big stories about Russian collusion broke. Both involve Democrats.

Tucker Carlson Tonight: Podesta Group’s ties to Russia

Fox’s Tucker Carlson Tonight team received a call from an anonymous source who said he had information about the Podesta Group, Manafort, the Clintons and Russia.

The man went to see Carlson to give him the story. Carlson’s staff fact checked names and dates. The first video talks about him and the second video features Bret Hume’s analysis to Carlson:

The Daily Caller has a summary of what Carlson discovered. Excerpts follow:

Carlson said in his opening segment that, according to a source Mueller is looking into the Podesta Group, a lobbying firm with close ties to Hillary Clinton, over spreading Russian influence in the United States during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Carlson said, “The central effort to extend Russian influence was focused on the executive branch, the Obama administration. The vehicle through which [Paul] Manafort worked for the Russians was a shell group called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. The group was supposedly based in Belgium but had no offices there. It had only two employees, both based in Ukraine.

Their telephone number in Brussels rang in Kiev. It was a sham, yet it had a presence in Washington. The European Centre for a Modern Ukraine was a major client of the Podesta Group. Why did the Russians choose the Podesta Group? Because both Podestas were close to the Clintons, and Hillary was then Secretary of State. She could get things done for the Podestas’ Russian clients. It was influence peddling, the most obvious kind,” he continued.

Carlson is the co-founder of The Daily Caller, by the way. Further to the story:

The Daily Caller co-founder added, “At one point, in either 2013 or early 2014, our source says a meeting was held that included both Tony Podesta and a representative of the Clinton Foundation. The explicit subject of that meeting: How to assist Uranium One, the Russian-owned company which controls 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity, and whose board members gave more than $100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. As our source put it, ‘Tony Podesta was basically part of the Clinton Foundation.’

According to Carlson, Manafort was in on the scheme.

“According to our source, Manafort was clear that Russia wanted to cultivate ties to Hillary Clinton, in the belief she was likely to become president,” he said during the segment. “These links to Hillary were apparently valuable; our source believes that the Russian money Manafort funneled to the Podesta Group greatly exceeds the roughly $1 million they were officially paid. Some of these payments, he said, could be hidden kickbacks that would be hard to trace. He described the Podesta Group’s books as a ‘treasure trove’ and highly secret. He told us the Podesta Group had no board, and all financial decisions were personally made by Tony Podesta. The Group’s employees, he said, included a person whose only official job was managing Tony Podesta’s art collection. It would be easy for such an organization to conceal financial transactions.”

Tucker was deeply unhappy that the media had not reported on this.

I think they all knew, but nearly everyone in media is a Hillary supporter, anyway. It’s much better from their perspective to rubbish Trump every day with false accusations and fake news.

Hume said that this is much bigger than Watergate and has far greater implications.

Carlson said he would continue reporting on it as he receives further information.

Washington Post: DNC paid for dossier

Returning to the aforementioned spurious dossier released in January, the Washington Post published an article, ‘Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier’.

An excerpt follows:

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

We don’t yet know who the Republican was. UPDATE 27/10: The Republican appears to be the billionaire financing the Washington Free Beacon.

The story went viral among Trump supporters:

Bret Baier of Fox News covered it:

This was Trump’s reaction:

The former Republican governor of Arkansas — and father of Trump’s press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders — tweeted:

This brings us back to Uranium One, about which I wrote in the final weeks of the campaign. That post also includes information on Podesta and Clinton dealings with Russia.

Yes, indeed.

This tweet has a lengthy scenario of what has occurred and what might unfold. Click on the tweet to see all 61 points, many of which follow:

2. Two main narratives seem to be emerging, both disastrous for Obama or Clinton.

3. Narrative #1 – illegal spying on US citizens, FISA & the Steele Dossier.

4. Narrative #2 – giving Putin access to the US uranium market for cash, via Uranium One.

5. The two narratives may be linked by recent revelations concerning U1, but let’s consider them apart for the moment.

6. Make no mistake, what’s unfolding on both counts is unprecedented for America. And I suspect we still don’t know the half of it.

14. ‘The Steele Dossier’ now appears to be a DNC/Clinton funded operation that they also ‘loaned’ to Obama & his people. A conspiracy.

15. It was a failure for the Clinton Gang. The aim was using it to use it BEFORE the election, but no one was willing to publish it.

16. We now seem to have the DNC, Bush, Clinton campaign & the Clinton Foundation paying for it. Possibly even Comey’s FBI. And others – TBD.

17. When it failed, I think it was EITHER made available to Obama or CLinton & Obama decided to use it – for illegal spying.

18. It formed the basis of the 2nd FISA request on October 15, 2016. That led to Trump’s wiretapping allegations.

19. Obama and/or Clinton then decided to use the dossier to try and destroy Trump AFTER he was elected, by persuading BuzzFeed to publish.

20. Jan 11 was the date, clearly targeted at preventing the inauguration. It was an act of desperation – and failed.

21. I’m not sure that many people realize just how serious this is – and may become.

22. Apart from the multiple felonies involved, check US Code 2384 & 2385, for starters.

23. US Code 2384 – seditious conspiracy. 2385 – advocating overthrow of government.

24. No one should be in doubt. Trump IS the type to consider them both. He thinks BIG and means to drain the swamp.

Hillary was Secretary of State when Uranium One got past the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — CFIUS in October 2010. She was also in charge of the Russian ‘reset’ since March 2009. (27)

Therefore, it is implausible that she was unaware of the impact of Uranium One, what Putin’s objectives were, particularly with a company called Tenam (28), which the FBI were watching as the firm’s operations expanded (29).

30. We know that Robert Mueller was ordered by HRC to deliver 10 grams of HEU to Russia in August 2009.

31. The official line is that the HEU was seized in Georgia (East Europe) in 2006 in a joint Georgia/CIA sting of a uranium smuggling gang.

32. I’ve always thought the story to be total BS. It’s as implausible as the Steele Dossier. You know what I think?

33. It was AMERICAN HEU. But anyway, I digress. American or not, it shows that Clinton KNEW that uranium was a national security asset.

34. Therefore, her failure at any time to oppose the deal at CFIUS – knowing what she knewis more than suspicious. It’s CRIMINAL.

35. Not only that, it is extremely difficult to believe that she was unaware of the MILLIONS flowing into the CF as all this was going on.

36. She ALSO failed to disclose these ‘donations’, in a clear breach of an agreement she made with POTUS Obama in 2008.

44. As more is revealed, the truly dangerous waters that the Clintons have led America into become clearer.

45. Because of them, Putin may well be selling US uranium (illegally) to Iran and NK. Or using it to bolster his own nuke arsenal.

46. THAT’S how serious this could be. Even that fact that the deal gave him leverage within the US energy market is astonishing.

47. Again, apart from.the many crimes committed here, Trump needs to at least consider US Code 2381 & 2382.

48. 2381 – Treason. 2382 – Misprision of Treason (concealment).

It is possible that Obama wanted to cover up Putin’s partial control over the uranium supply chain (51), causing him to make some strange decisions with regard to Russia (52). Then, along came the persistent accusation that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016.

56. The Russians DID interfere, as they always have. BUT Obama knew full well that the Trump-Russia smear was garbage.

60. ‘I’ll have more flexibility after the election’ [2012]

61. You only say this if you’ve agreed to do something but can’t deliver. And a POTUS saying this, to a Putin lackey? Totally BIZARRE.

In 2016, Hillary was furious with the DNC’s Donna Brazile after the Clinton-Trump Commander-in-Chief Forum hosted by NBC’s Matt Lauer. What she said is too foul to post, but this is part of it:

If [Trump] wins, we all hang from nooses!

More to come as news emerges. As Trump would say, ‘This is YUGE!’

In the meantime, please pray earnestly for President Trump’s safety. Also on October 24, a man embedded himself in the press pool at the Capitol building to throw Russian flags at the president, yelling, ‘Trump is treason!’ He was in close proximity to him. Scary. Where were the Secret Service agents?

Advertisements

The other day I wrote about Seth Rich, a DNC employee who was murdered in mysterious circumstances on July 10, 2016 in Washington, DC.

Yesterday, I provided the source for the beginning of the Russian narrative used against President Donald Trump.

Both are WikiLeaks related.

Today, those who do not already know will find out what Hillary Clinton’s campaign had in store for leakers.

That, too, is related to WikiLeaks.

The Podesta WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary’s campaign team and advisers wanted to make ‘an example’ out of ‘leakers’, even if nothing could be proven.

WikiLeaks released this tweet on October 30, 2016:

The source is Podesta WikiLeaks email no. 36082 from February 21, 2015.

That day, the Washington Post printed a story about Hillary Clinton’s campaign branding. Two of the people interviewed were involved with her presidential campaign in 2015:

Ahead of her campaign launch, Clinton has tapped some of the Democratic Party’s star strategists as well as two of corporate America’s branding wizards: Wendy Clark, who specializes in marketing age-old brands such as Coca-Cola to younger and more diverse customers; and Roy Spence, a ­decades-long Clinton friend who dreamed up the “Don’t Mess With Texas” anti-littering slogan as well as flashy ad campaigns for Southwest Airlines and Wal-Mart.

Clark took an unpaid leave in January from Coca-Cola, where she is president of brands and strategic marketing for carbon­ated beverages in North America, to help Clinton in what Clark called “a passion project.” Spence is co-founder and chairman of GSD&M, an Austin-based corporate ad firm, and has experience in politics, including with Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, and political operative Joel Benenson discussed their displeasure with the article and with those two people for talking to the press without consulting the campaign managers first.

Podesta wrote (emphases mine below):

we need a strategy on this that goes beyond internal discipline. This story could have been written without any of these big mouths blabbing …

Benenson agreed:

I think we have to make examples now of people who have violated the trust of HRC and the rest of the team. People going forward need to know there are stiff consequences for leaking, self-promotion, unauthorized talking with the press. No one – literally no one talked to the press in either Obama campaign without clearing it with campaign brass.

Podesta replied in a curious way:

I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.

Campaign manager Robby Mook, who was copied on the exchange, agreed:

I would love an example being made.

How far did this go in reality?

No one knows, but many suspect — rightly or wrongly — that Seth Rich’s alleged leak of 40,000+ emails to WikiLeaks — the DNC WikiLeaks — might well have led to his death in July 2016.

On Tuesday, May 16, the torchpaper was lit. As Fox News ran with the Rich story, bringing it to the attention of the general public, three new Twitter hastags were busy: #HisNameWasSethRich, #SethRichCoverUp and #SethRich.

Some leftists did take note, primarily those employed at David Brock‘s Media Matters, who now realise they’ve been paid to circulate ‘lies’ online and said so on 4chan.org/pol/. Let’s hope that they do resign now that they know the truth.

Other Americans also doubt the Russian narrative.

With all the law enforcement silence around Rich’s murder and little information to go on over the past ten months, people are naturally suspicious details are being covered up or that nothing is being done:

People following the case since last year do not believe that Rich had no involvement in the DNC WikiLeaks:

Equally, they are disappointed that so much wasted energy is being spent on the Russian narrative and James Comey:

This could be why:

Incidentally, Seth Rich was not the only man to die mysteriously in the summer of 2016:

Pray that the truth comes out about these four men, all of whom had a relationship with the Democrats.

My intention last year was to write about the WikiLeaks emails from the Democrats.

Because of all the hubbub surrounding the 2016 presidential campaign, I never got around to it. I still have all the bookmarks of the emails themselves and related analyses from The_Donald. They are a revelation.

I hope that some people will be wondering how and where the Russian narrative used against President Donald Trump started.

Look no further than Hillary Clinton’s campaign supremo John Podesta and a journalist, Brent Budowsky, who writes for The Hill.

Much of the Podesta WikiLeaks email no. 25651, dated December 21, 2015, concerns Hillary Clinton’s stance on ISIS and Syria. There is also a mention of campaign advertising and getting out the vote.

However, the key to this is the Democrats’ strategy against Trump, primarily this one from Brent Budowsky (emphases mine below):

Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin

Budowsky was also interested in finding and releasing incriminating tapes of Trump to help Hillary, whom they knew even then was not doing well in the polls:

I suspect her negative trust ratings are locked in through election day. If there is a Trump ISIS video the campaign release it. If not, her untrustworthy numbers will remain further locked at high levels. These trust problems are self-induced and keep occurring.

Budowsky became more insistent:

Re the Trump ISIS video, if we don’t have the proof campaign should assign 100 people to look for it ASAP, there is probably something on tape somewhere.

With regard to campaign adverts, Budowsky already noted that Trump was not running them:

It is no coincidence that this year Trump runs no ads, while Jeb and Hillary run the most ads with little effect. Voter registration by contrast creates real voters and changes—and improves—the playing field itself. There is no ad on earth that will increase her trust ratings or the enthusiasm of her voters the way a mega-registration project will increase her support on election day.

They knew then that Hillary was scuppered. Based on the context, they also seemed to discern that Trump was going to be Hillary’s opponent in 2016.

In June 2016 — one month before the Republican National Convention declared Trump the GOP presidential candidate — Trump Derangement Syndrome was flying high in the Democrat camp. Obama’s campaign manager from 2008, later a senior adviser, tweeted:

On November 9, 2016 — the day after the election — Hillary’s campaign heads decided to run hard with the Russian narrative:

The quote in blue comes from an investigative book about the Clinton campaign, Shattered, which came out earlier this year.

On April 21, Breitbart included the quote in their report, which began:

The blistering behind-the-scenes book, by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, illustrates how Hillary Clinton furiously blamed her defeat on the FBI investigation into her private emails, Russian interference, and Trump’s supposed support from “white nationalists” …

Also:

The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan — pushing the press to cover how “Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio,” while “hammering the media for focusing so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, which had created a cloud over her candidacy,” the authors wrote.

And so the Russian narrative survives, alive and well, to this day.

The Democrats and the media have been displaying abject contempt for the people of the United States ever since.

Anyone who still thinks either camp cares about them is sorely mistaken.

Bruce Bawer — an American who has lived in Europe for nearly two decades — wrote an excellent essay for PJ Media, ‘What Happened in France?’

It offers a post-mortem of Emmanuel Macron’s victory on Sunday, May 7, 2017 and explains how it happened.

With an upcoming parliamentary election taking place in Britain on Thursday, June 8, it seems apposite to look at voting patterns in the two countries.

Before I excerpt Bawer’s editorial, I, too, have noticed a certain voting behaviour in France and the UK, two countries I know well. I live in the UK and see that voters are reluctant not so much to go to the polls as they are to actually vote in a way that reverses globalism. People in other parts of Europe, e.g. France, are similarly skittish.

The hive mind is a powerful thing in Europe. The globalists created it through politically correct thinking and make jolly good use of it via the media and pollsters.

Two recent British shockers were David Cameron’s victory in May 2015 and the referendum vote for Brexit in 2016. Both results surprised everyone. This is because we were under constant onslaught by print and broadcast media to vote against the Conservatives and Brexit.

Even now that Theresa May is the occupant of No. 10, politics remains a touchy subject. As I’ve said many times before, it’s not something I discuss much with people I know, even with fellow Conservatives, some of whom are quite wet — squishy, for my American readers — about Brexit. They think voters should have gone for Remain last June.

Howeverand this is something Bruce Bawer did not mention in his pieceEuropeans do not have a well developed online alternative media universe comprising independent journalists, citizen journalists and political fora. This, to me, is the principal difference between the UK and Europe.

Bawer’s article is well worth reading and passing along to friends. I’ll try to excerpt as little as possible, because it probably took him a long time to write.

Americans are probably still scratching their heads over 2017 election results, not only in France but in the Netherlands. Both resulted in preserving a self-destructive status quo, one that increases terror and diminishes national identity.

Bawer says that Europeans feel a collective guilt about their former colonies and political movements. Therefore, they feel the need for perpetual atonement (emphases mine below):

One way of trying to answer it is to look at countries one by one. For example, the Brits and French feel guilty about their imperial histories, and hence find it difficult to rein in the descendants of subject peoples. The Germans feel guilty about their Nazi past – and the Swedes feel guilty about cozying up to Nazis – and thus feel compelled to lay out the welcome mat for, well, just about anybody. The Dutch, similarly, are intensely aware that during the Nazi occupation they helped ship off a larger percentage of their Jews to the death camps than any other Western European country, and feel a deep need to atone.

Then there’s postmodernism:

According to postmodern thinking, no culture is better than any other – and it’s racist to say otherwise. No, scratch that – other cultures are, in fact, better than Western culture. Whites, by definition, are oppressors, imperialists, and colonialists, while “people of color” are victims.

We are in denial about terrorist attacks:

The plainer the truth got, in fact, the more fiercely they resisted it. And as skilled propagandists began to represent Muslims as the mother of all victim groups, many Westerners were quick to buy into it all …

But – and this is a fact that some of us are thoroughly incapable of identifying with, and thus almost thoroughly incapable of graspingsome people don’t want to know the truth. And if they do know the truth, they want to un-know it.

These are not intellectuals or socio-political elites, but ordinary people of various income groups and educational levels:

I’m talking about people who, in everyday life, come across as thoroughly good and decent – but who, when push comes to shove, just don’t want to rock the boat. That’s a lot of people. Maybe most. People who are nice so long as it’s easy to be nice

There are kind people who, the minute there’s any hint of trouble – which means, way before the death-camp round-up begins – prefer to lie low. Their highest value isn’t truth or virtue or beauty or even long-term security for them and their families but the ability to buy another day without major trouble.

You’d think they’d be able to look forward at least some distance into the future and dwell on that grim prospect. Able to see their children, their grandchildren, and so forth, living under sharia law. If, indeed, lucky to be living at all.

But I think it needs to be recognized that for some people, seeing that far into the future is just beyond their intellectual grasp. Or beyond what they dare to envision

Bawer posits that a lot of these people can see what is actually happening to Europe but they are ‘terrified’ to do anything about it, even at the ballot box.

This is why a Conservative victory in 2015 and Brexit victory in 2016 were so significant for Britain. I had hoped our continental neighbours would follow suit this year, but, alas, it was not meant to be. The Germans are likely to see Angela Merkel continue her chancellorship later this year.

Bawer says that Europeans are now so cowed into submission, even a private vote can’t help:

You might think that, once in the voting booth, these people would be able – and not just able but eager, desperate even – to stand up against the powers above them that have turned their countries upside down and assert their power as citizens. But everything around them has conspired all their lives to render them incapable of feeling that power – or, perhaps, has rendered them incapable of feeling that they have the moral right to exercise that power in the way that their gut is begging them to.

That still, quiet voice in their heads, which I would describe as a voice of plain reason and common sense, is up against the resounding voices of all the higher-ups shouting in unison – the leading voices of politics, business, the academia, the media, and so on – that they’ve been bred from infancy to respect and take seriously. To, indeed, obey

So it is that even in a secret ballot, it takes European voters a remarkable amount of nerve to resist the thunderous chorus of voices from above urging them to vote against their own interests; it feels like nothing less than an act of treason to heed the meek little voices in their own heads begging them to do the opposite – to do what’s actually best for themselves and their loved ones.

Bawer nails it perfectly in his next sentence:

They’ve been psychologically manipulated to the point where they truly believe, on some level, at least in some Orwellian doublethink kind of way, that acting in clear defense of their own existence, their own culture, their own values, and their own posterity, is an act of ugly prejudice.

Yes — that’s it in a nutshell.

I see it here in the elderly — people old enough to know better — and I see it in the middle-aged and the young.

Europeans must wake up and vote for what is right and good.

I sincerely hope that Britain will do so again on June 8.

Various tweets and videos circulated following the French presidential elections on Sunday, May 7, 2017 saying that the result was hacked. Not true.

France’s example is a good one for other countries to follow. So is the British voting procedure.

This is because both involve paper. In France, one puts a slip of paper with the candidate’s name on it into an envelope. In the UK, we mark an X next to a candidate’s name. What could be simpler?

Traditional voting

There are very few voting machines in France. Most of the French vote the old fashioned way.

Furthermore, they are prohibited from sending in an absentee ballot.

The French must vote in person, even when they live overseas (e.g. Canada). If they are unable to show up at the polling station, they can appoint someone to vote for them, provided that person lives in the same commune or, when abroad, vicinity (e.g. Montreal). That said, arranging proxy voting requires appearing before a designated government official beforehand.

A few days before the election is held, voters receive an envelope by post which has flyers from the various candidates along with a slip of paper with the candidate’s name printed on it.

Last weekend, a video showed someone opening their envelope with information about Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen. However, although there were two voting slips, both were for Macron:

A photo showed damaged Le Pen slips damaged in the town of Allier. These could not be used for voting. Allier, incidentally, voted overwhelmingly for Macron:

Although those tweets elicited reaction, a number of French voters responded by saying that the polling station has stacks of slips of paper — bulletins — for each candidate.

Even if someone comes in and steals a stack of bulletins for a particular candidate, polling station officials can ring up and get more within a short space of time. This happened in Ruffey-les-Echirey in Burgundy. France3 reported (I’ve edited the Google translation slightly):

The two stacks of ballot papers, one for Emmanuel Macron and the other for Marine Le Pen, were no longer equal, as required by the electoral code: the electors of the commune were only offered 140 Le Pen ballots instead of 973 – the number of registrants in Ruffey …

Several hundred “Marine Le Pen” bulletins were deliberately stolen during the night, thus compromising the fairness of the two candidates in the polling station. But it took more than that to disturb the elected Ruffey: the mayor, Nadine Mutin, and her 1st deputy contacted the prefecture of Côte-d’Or to resolve the discrepancy. The prefecture provided them with official bulletins thirty minutes later. With enough Le Pen ballots, the polling station was able to open at 8 a.m., and voting unfolded smoothly.

Media blackout

Campaigns end the Friday before the election. No election news is allowed from midnight on the Saturday preceding the election.

How voting works

One must be a registered voter in order to cast a ballot. The minimum voting age is 18.

On election day, French voters go to their appointed polling station.

Before voting, an official checks their voter registration and identity cards. Showing a voter registration card is supposed to be mandatory in communes with more than 5,000 people. However, Marianne reported that if voters lost or misplaced it, showing an ID card would be sufficient, even in larger communes.

https://i1.wp.com/ekladata.com/oKF7QilzlYouNO1Fsw1f1n-siXk.jpgVoters then go to a table with stacks of pre-printed bulletins and envelopes. There is one stack for each candidate. I have read that voters must take one slip for each candidate, but I have also read anecdotally that some take only two. Obviously, the more one takes, the less chance that anyone will know one’s voting intention.

Voters also take an envelope before proceeding to private voting booths.

Once in the privacy of the voting booth, voters put the piece of paper with their candidate’s name on it into the envelope. They then close the envelope. They throw unused slips of paper into the bin provided.

They proceed to the table with a clear perspex box which contains the ballots. One official mans the box and two others are on hand to check voter registration and ID cards once more. Once the identity check has been made, voters give their closed envelope to the official in charge of the box. The official opens the little slot on top of the box. The voter places the envelope in the box, then the official closes it.

The official running the box then announces, ‘A voté‘, meaning ‘(has) voted’. Sometimes in smaller places, the official also announces the voter’s full name: ‘Jeanne Duclos a voté‘. I’ve personally seen this done.

The voter signs the voter’s list and an official stamps his voter registration card in the appropriate box.

This ensures that no one can vote twice.

Voting blanc or nul

Protest voting is popular in France.

One can vote blanc — blank — or nul — no vote.

Since 2014, the government has allowed for a tabulation of both types of vote, although neither is included in the entire percentage of votes. In other words, even if the majority of voters cast such a ballot, it would still make no difference to the candidates’ percentages. Someone would emerge as the winner.

Marianne explains that there are only two ways to vote blanc: either put an empty envelope into the box or put a blank piece of paper into the envelope.

Similarly, there are only two ways to vote nul: write anyone else’s name on a piece of paper or put a torn candidate slip into the envelope.

Counting the votes

Polls close at 6 p.m. in smaller communes and at 8 p.m. in towns and cities. Local laws determine closing hours. On Sunday, polls closed at 7 across the country.

Tabulating the votes is remarkably efficient, even though not all votes are counted by the time the media announce the result.

I’ve watched live election coverage a few times over the past decade. By the time I tune in — 11:00 in the UK — the winning candidate has already given his victory speech and is off to celebrate.

The French know the result before midnight. There is no need to pull an all-nighter as there is in the UK and, sometimes, the US.

Fraud nearly impossible

The French voting system, although it is old-fashioned, is remarkably practical, simple and effective.

It mitigates against fraud and there is almost no chance of hacking, even in the few places with machines. Those in one middle class Parisian suburb did not even show the candidates’ names, although Marianne reported that all were fixed on Sunday morning after the polling stations opened:

Marianne stated that, beginning in the first round of voting in 2007, voting machines were allowed in communes with more than 3,500 inhabitants. However, they have been notoriously problematic ever since. After the first round in 2007, the minister of the interior declared a moratorium on new installations, although those communes with machines already installed were allowed to keep them.

Conclusion

It would be nice if the US could adopt the French paper model. However, the US system combines legislative and local elections with the presidential, making this impractical. The US also votes for a wider set of local representatives than France or the UK.

In Europe, we spread our elections out. For example, the UK had local elections on Thursday, May 4. We will be voting again on June 8 for our MPs in a snap election which we hope will return Theresa May to No. 10 so she has an official mandate — and a greater majority of Conservative MPs — to properly implement Brexit.

The French will return to the polls in another two-round election process for their legislators on June 11 and June 18.

Further reading:

Elections in France (Wikipedia)

French Election Vocabulary Practice (French Today)

French legislative election, 2017 (Wikipedia)

Congratulations to everyone in the United States who got involved online in discussing and analysing France’s presidential election, the second round of which was held on Sunday, May 7, 2017.

It was refreshing to see Americans engage so well with this historic election an ocean away.

As predicted, Emmanuel Macron is the new resident of the Elysée Palace in Paris. He won with 66% — two-thirds — of the vote. Turnout was around 74% — high, compared with other Western countries — but was the lowest for France since 1969.

Now he and his En Marche! — formerly a movement, now a political party — must work with the Socialists (PS) and others on the left for les législatives (parliamentary) elections on June 18.

It’s interesting that the supposedly independent, free-thinking Marianne newsweekly put Macron on its cover for the second week in a row. Earlier this year, they criticised other news magazines for multiple Macron covers. Sadly, they have fallen in step with the other sheeplike outlets:

Marine Le Pen

Marine Le Pen (FN, Front National) was upbeat in her concession speech. For the next few weeks, the FN are now the party of opposition.

That said, I expect Les Républicains (LR, conservatives) to regain that position on June 18.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who hid herself away crying when she lost, Le Pen got on the dance floor with her campaign workers:

Discussions on RMC (French talk radio) this morning centred around her renaming her father’s party to Les Patriotes. No one really thought a new name would give the FN better traction among the French electorate.

Emmanuel Macron

On Sunday evening, Macron supporters waited at the Louvre for him to speak in front of the museum’s glass pyramid:

Hillary Clinton concurred:

She referred to the 48-hour media blackout prior to a French election. This is so that voters are not unduly swayed one way or the other. We have the same thing in the UK.

I watched BFMTV’s coverage and tuned in as the presidential entourage was making its way along part of the Tour de France route to a secret location where he, his family and main supporters had drinks and dinner. Everyone entered by the back in a narrow side street, heavy with security. No one was allowed in the road unless they were going to his victory dinner.

How France voted

Matthieu Gallard of the French division of the polling company IPSOS, has a lot of excellent statistics of which parts of the French population voted for Macron and Le Pen:

Voter profiles

If you click on his tweet, you can see that Gallard also has IPSOS charts which show that Macron did better across the board with executives (cadres), professionals (prof. intermédiaires) and the retired (retraités). The only group where Le Pen dominated was the working class (ouvriers).

Even education levels did not make a difference overall. Macron won every demographic there, from those who had not completed high school to those with post-graduate degrees.

Tactical voting

Forty-three per cent voted Macron only to stop Le Pen (the historical toxicity of the FN).

However, that is not necessarily positive. This will become clearer in June, because IPSOS also has another chart (see Gallard’s other tweets) showing that 61% of the French do not want Macron’s En Marche! to have a majority in parliament (l’Assemblée Nationale).

Regions

The New York Times has a good map of regions where Le Pen dominated:

Someone from an English-speaking country surmises that this has to do with ancient linguistics:

No. It has to do with immigration patterns. The North and Bordeaux (west) have had enough. The voters along the southern coast have the same issue.

Paris also has a big problem, but, like all other Western capitals and major cities, votes for the Left — regardless.

You can see more charts and statistics here.

Francophone reaction to foreign opinion

French-speaking media people were most unhappy with alt-media journalist Mike Cernovich‘s reaction to the outcome.

Cernovich tweeted that America should accept Le Pen voters as political refugees.

Oddly, the responses I’ve seen came from countries other than France.

A Belgian journalist who works at the European Parliament picked up on it, calling Cernovich a ‘little protege’ of President Trump. Frankly, I’m not sure they’ve even met each other:

A Genevan journalist from Le Temps dismissed Cernovich as a ‘conspiracy writer’:

Visit to Germany

Macron’s first trip will be to Germany to visit Angela Merkel.

I have seen several journalists jump on this as being Macron-specific.

However, a trip to Germany is normal for incoming French presidents. François Hollande also went to see Merkel within 48 hours of his election in 2012.

Conclusion

Ultimately, only the parliamentary elections in June can end the debate that is currently going on in France. The first statistic, incidentally, was the result of the Brexit referendum in 2016:

Coming soon: why the election result was not rigged

Tomorrow: Alternative media and Macron’s financial situation

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 the French will be electing a new president whose term will run for five years.

It is almost certain that Emmanuel Macron (En Marche!) will win.

Marine Le Pen (Front National) is likely to pick up more votes than her father Jean-Marie has in past elections, but there is too much historical baggage attached to the FN to make her a winning proposition nationwide.

May 3 – debate

On Wednesday, May 3, TF1 hosted a televised debate of the two candidates, which was also shown on several other channels.

One of my favourite socio-political commentators, journalist, author and essayist Natacha Polony, appeared on RMC (talk radio) the next morning to say that the debate revealed one candidate who doesn’t understand the issues and one who is a perfect Énarque (graduate of the École Nationale d’Administration, where the top politicians come from). Macron is also a graduate of Sciences-Po, also very important to political life.

Polony says that the debates told the French public very little about how they would resolve current problems in their nation. A few ‘hollow’ soundbites and ‘vulgarity’, she says, do not constitute a policy position.

France24 reported similarly. The debate was:

loud, fast, personal, riven with inaccuracies and thin on substance …

The media and viewers thought that Macron won the debate hands down.

SkyNews has a good recap of the highlights:

In angry exchanges, Ms Le Pen played up Mr Macron’s background as a former banker and economy minister in the outgoing Socialist government.

Portraying him as Francois Hollande’s lapdog, she said he was the “candidate of globalisation gone wild”.

He tore into her flagship policy of abandoning the euro and accused her of failing to offer solutions to France’s economic problems such as high unemployment.

The attacks were often personal with Mr Macron calling Ms Le Pen a “parasite” and a liar.

Also:

Ms Le Pen accused Mr Macron of having no plan on security but being indulgent with Islamic extremism.

He told her that radicals would love her to become president because she would stoke conflict.

Alternative media’s Paul Joseph Watson, a frequent traveller to France, reacted from London:

For the FN, the debate was of historical importance:

The TV appearance was the first time a National Front candidate has appeared in a run-off debate – an indication of how far Le Pen has brought her party by softening its image and trying to separate it from past xenophobic associations.

Macron win baked in from the start

Emmanuel Macron was meant to win from late 2016.

The media are doing their job in carrying water for him. This week’s French magazine stand is incredible:

Macron, who served as François Hollande’s economics minister for two years, was his pet in many ways. His campaign was designed to beat that of the conservative François Fillon (LR) and the socialist former education minister Benoît Hamon (PS).

Manuel Valls

Valls Schaefer Munich Economic Summit 2015 (cropped).JPGThose who know that former prime minister Manuel Valls was tipped to be the next PS candidate years ago might wonder what happened. This, too, was part of the plan.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A PS party leader warned Valls not to run and do something ‘irreversible’.

Shortly afterwards, Hollande told Valls in a one-on-one meeting in December that eventually his time would come.

Hollande, incidentally, kept Valls in the dark as to whether he would run for a second term. He didn’t.

Valls did not understand the message from his party. It was not Valls’s turn for a reason. The PS supported Macron, even though Macron created his own political movement.

Valls went ahead and ran for the PS primary earlier this year. He was a long-time favourite. Yet, the weak Benoît Hamon beat him. Behind the scenes, the PS machine made sure Valls did not win. Nothing personal, just politics.

Valls put his support behind Macron rather than Hamon before the first round of voting on Sunday, April 23. That was understandable as Hamon was polling only in the single digits and received only slightly over 6% of the vote that day.

François Fillon

François Fillon 2010.jpgFrançois Fillon of Les Républicains, or LR, was my candidate. He served as prime minister under Nicolas Sarkozy between 2007 and 2012.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fillon has always been measured, reserved and statesman-like.

There was never a hint of scandal about him.

He won the LR primary decisively on November 27, 2016 with two-thirds of the vote. The turnout — non-LR members could pay €3 for a ballot — was immense. Many polling stations had long queues all day. Some ran out of ballots. Officials were surprised, to say the least.

The result took everyone aback. No one had written much about Fillon in the run-up to the primary. In fact, one newsweekly, Marianne, called him ‘Mr Nobody’.

In December, with a sound political manifesto, he was seen as the man to beat.

In the third week of January, two of Marianne‘s readers wrote letters to the editor, expressing fear about Fillon. In the magazine’s 20 – 26 January 2017, edition, one reader wrote about the disaster 2017 would turn out to be with ‘the arrival of Fillon at the Elysée’ (p. 50). The other reader’s letter bore the title ‘SOS Fillon’. It said what an ‘inhuman’ cruelty from an environmental perspective it would be for him to be ‘at the Elysée’ (p. 52).

The polls showed Fillon as the top candidate at that time.

On January 25, everything changed.

Mysterious charges came out of the blue, with an address book and a dossier given to Le Canard enchaîné. Allegations purported that Fillon’s Welsh wife Penelope had engaged in fictitious employment and had been paid hundreds of thousands of euros for work she had never done both for a literary magazine and as Fillon’s parliamentary assistant. This was strange, because the allegations stretched back to things that supposedly took place in the late 1990s, yet, they had never seen the light of day until now. Recall that Fillon — ‘Mr Nobody’ — was prime minister between 2007 and 2012.

A preliminary hearing began immediately, something that is unheard of in similar situations in France. It normally takes weeks, if not months, for the authorities to investigate.

Nearly every day for two months, either Le Canard enchaîné was receiving new information about other Fillon scandals or the authorities were questioning the couple and searching their properties.

As Eric Ciotti, the LR president of the council of Alpes-Maritimes, told RMC the other week, the last day Fillon had a proper campaign was on January 24.

Fillon had to be cleared out of the way for Macron. Believe me, Macron never would have stood a chance under normal circumstances.

Despite all of this, on April 23, Fillon received a respectable 20.0% of the votes in the first round. He came third, behind Le Pen. Le Pen garnered 21.3% and Macron 24.0%. Jean-Luc Mélenchon came fourth with 19.5%. Benoît Hamon, the PS candidate, got just over 6%.

Now that Fillon is out of the way, so is the drip-drip-drip of scandal.

You can read more about Valls and Fillon in an article I wrote recently for Orphans of Liberty, ‘Pauvre Fillon’. (Pauvre means ‘poor’, ‘pitiable’).

The Big Media narrative

Big Media have been busy for months saying that Macron is a centrist, anti-establishment and antisystème candidate.

If he espoused the latter two characteristics, Big Media would never have endorsed him. Big Media are part of the establishment and le système.

Marianne noted that all of these media outlets have made a big deal about everything Macron except his political platform (13 – 19 January 2017 issue, p. 11).

They have given Macron the celebrity treatment in the same way that the world media gave Obama in 2008. Marianne pointed out that l’Obs (Le Nouvel Observateur) put Macron on their cover six times in 2016 (p. 17).

At that stage, Marianne only had Macron on their cover twice: that particular January issue and in November 2015. Interestingly, the 2015 issue has ‘Moi, Président‘ next to his photo.

This week, Marianne fell in line with every other magazine and put him on the cover. Sad. The magazine that prides itself on independent (albeit left-wing) thinking howled about media intox — hype — then fell into the same trap.

Establishment help

Macron has benefited from Socialist help at home and abroad.

In France, Marianne says that Hollande’s ex-partner and mother of his children, Ségolène Royal — former minister of the environment — has been discreetly advising him behind the scenes since December (13 – 19 January 2017 issue, p. 12). Royal has long admired Macron. She appeared with him on the hustings this week.

In the United States, Obama — also a socialist — gave Macron a fulsome endorsement to the French electorate. Can you imagine the outcry if Trump had done something similar?

My guess is that he was in Tahiti for this very reason. If he had rung Macron from the US, the American intelligence community could have tracked his phone calls. Ironically, Obama put such an arrangement in place himself, whereby Americans corresponding with or talking to people overseas may become of interest to US intelligence.

Like Obama, Macron is another Manchurian Candidate. The two must have much in common.

This tweet bridges the discussion from Obama to the next two men mentioned below:

Besides socialists, there are the globalist economics experts and policy wonks around Macron, including Alain Minc and Jacques Attali.

I saw Alain Minc several years ago on a late-night French talk show, On n’est pas couché (‘We Haven’t Gone to Bed’). The subject was the disconnect between a candidate’s promises and the reality that follows an election. Minc told Natasha Polony, who was a regular panellist at the time, that even she had no place in voicing an opinion about policy-making. Minc said:

You get your say at the polls. At that point, your role ends. Afterwards, we take over.

Her jaw dropped.

In other words, leave it to the experts. The great unwashed have no voice. This guy is advising Macron. He also attended the same grandes écoles as the future French president.

Their already heated debate continued a little longer. Then, Minc dismissed her as being silly and told her to be quiet. If I remember rightly, the talk show host stepped in and changed the subject.

Jacques Attali, who is richer than Croesus, said in a print interview a couple of years ago that, even though he is in his 70s, he still works every day. He said he could not help but look down on retired people who wanted to relax and enjoy life. As a graduate of the same schools as Macron and Minc, Attali has never had to toil day after day in a manufacturing plant or drive a lorry or work in a slaughterhouse. If he had busied himself at any of those occupations for decades, he, too, would want to put his feet up.

Policy positions

Macron’s team have been busy this week tweeting, sometimes posting several every few minutes: a lot of empty words — or bla bla, as the French say — style over substance.

He doesn’t want people to know what he’s actually going to do.

Keebler AC reposted the following tweet on a thread at The Conservative Treehouse:

What follows are a few illustrated highlights from the debate that give you an idea of what Macron is about:

I’ll translate the dialogue below:

Juncker (?, on the left): The barbarians are at the gates. How can we guarantee a French victory?

Macron (lower right): Open wide the gates. There is no such thing as French culture.

Hollande (upper right): I told you so! The little one’s a genius!

All of this causes confusion. On March 31, an RMC panellist, a barrister, asked how Macron could be Hollande’s successor:

It’s inconceivable. He’s surrounded by people from the Right.

However, others do understand. Someone replied to that comment with this helpful illustration:

The influential imam from the Grande Mosque de Paris, Dalil Boubakeur, called on all French Muslims to vote for Macron in the second round.

And Les Républicains (LR), in order to continue to distance themselves from the FN, also urged their members and supporters to vote for Macron. Career politician Jean-François Copé rightly criticised Macron for his heavily publicised victory party after the first round, while Marine Le Pen left her supporters to party and made a quick exit after the results were announced.

Here’s Macron’s party at La Rotonde brasserie in Paris’s Montparnasse district. Copé said he was stunned:

Note that Copé also commented above that, as far as ensuring French security is concerned, Macron is ‘very weak’. As far as economic policies go, Macron is in ‘permanent flux’.

That said, Copé announced on the show:

With death in my soul, I said I will vote Macron.

Globalists v Nationalists

Ultimately, the battle for the Elysée is about globalists (Macron) versus nationalists (Le Pen).

This revolves around changes in those who embrace Marxism.

S. Armaticus, who authors the Catholic site, The Deus Ex Machina Blog, wrote an excellent analysis in the comments on The Conservative Treehouse‘s pre-election post:

The “Globalists” -read cultural Marxists in the US are endorsing the “globalists” – read cultural Marxists in France. Now the cultural Marxist’s enemy is the former economic Marxists- read post-Soviet countries. The reason that the cultural Marxists hate the former economic Marxists is that the later dumped their Marxism. The reason they dumped their Marxism is because it didn’t work. It left their countries ruined. So these former Marxists are trying to implement something that works to get them out of the mess that Marxism left. While the cultural Marxists never experienced Marxism first hand. So they are trying to implement Marxism.

And that is why us normal people like you, me and The POTUS, are caught up in this fratricidal war between the neo-Marxists (Obama/Macron/Trudeau) and the ex-Marxists (Putin).

We should know the results on Sunday night. Unfortunately, because the French don’t really have enough of an online presence to fight globalism.

As Marine Le Pen said, a woman will be leading France: either her or Angela Merkel.

No guesses as to who will be in charge come Monday morning.

Next week I will discuss Macron’s private life.

On Monday, March 6, 2017, Fox News host Tucker Carlson was one of the speakers who addressed the International Association of Fire Fighters at their annual legislative conference in Washington, DC.

Fox 10 Phoenix has the entire 34 minute video — recommended viewing:

For decades, average Americans have wondered why there is such a gulf between Washington and most of the United States.

Carlson explains the DC disconnect.

Starting with Trump’s surprise win in 2016, Carlson said that the middle class was simply fed up with the DC elite ignoring their cries for help regarding immigration and trade.

He said that the DC elite are oblivious to average Americans. Washington DC has full employment and more people working as housekeepers than ever before. Conversation revolves around the theoretical, e.g. economic theory, rather than reality.

He explained that two things that people in DC love are immigration and free trade. Immigration is great because DC residents can get servants very cheaply. In some cases, he said, they are paid a child’s allowance as a salary. DC residents then feel they are being virtuous towards the less fortunate.

However, what works for DC doesn’t work for the rest of the nation. The middle class tried time and time again to point that out to the elite, who dismissed them as being racist and stupid.

The same scenario occurred with trade. The middle class are losing their jobs. The elite in DC do not care.

This broad swathe of dissatisfied Americans took to the ballot box in November 2016. They mounted a peaceful revolution by electing Donald Trump to the White House.

Carlson talked about the rabid hate of Trump in Washington, where 90%+ of voters plumped for Hillary Clinton. Carlson said that, out of three million government employees, only 50 actually like Trump. Whether that is numerically accurate is beside the point. Trump faces an uphill climb.

Furthermore, as much as Democrats loathe Trump, it’s even more entrenched on the Republican side.

He said that Trump can come up with the most sensible policies — buying cheaper drugs from Canada — and politicians simply shut him out. They cannot hear what he is saying. I call that Trump Derangement Syndrome. The term was used about Bush and Obama’s opponents in their time.

Carlson said that nothing in this world is 100% good. Immigration and market-driven trade are two of these things. They work well for the top one per cent but are disastrous for everyone else. He pointed to other examples of where people have noticed and vote accordingly: the UK, with Brexit, and France, with Marine LePen (doing well in the polls).

Carlson spoke about the disaster coming from mass unemployment, particularly among men. Unemployment, he said, drives men crazy. Men need to work in order to feel that they have value and purpose in life.

He said that the current immigration model — and this is true for other Western countries — is predicated on a large manufacturing base. Unfortunately, that manufacturing base no longer exists. Therefore, immigration policy must change accordingly to fit reality.

This also holds true with regard to war and trade. Trump opposes needless American intervention in other nation’s affairs. Trump supports trade deals that will help, not hinder, America.

Carlson also warned about driverless vehicles. Once again, all of Washington waxes lyrical about how ‘cool’ these are. Yet, they will put 8 million people out of jobs overnight if they become reality on the nation’s roads. Carlson pointed out that the most popular occupation among recent high school graduates is driving a truck.

If truck drivers — and taxi drivers — become obsolete, what are they going to do for work? Carlson correctly surmised that they won’t be retraining to become computer programmers. He said that the Trump administration should ban them outright. I agree, in part. They should be banned for commercial use, at least.

He also talked about the Tea Party, which failed, in his estimation, because it lacked a leader. The Tea Party, he explained, was a way for conservative Republicans to express their dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, which clearly does not share their interests.

Then along came Donald Trump. Carlson found it interesting that Trump has never really issued a concise statement about what his movement or ideology stands for. Yet, he struck a chord with millions of Americans who felt he spoke for them.

I’ll conclude with something that Carlson opened with. He said that Republicans and Democrats must really take in and understand what upsets Americans and why they voted for Trump. He said that serious soul searching must take place in the two main political parties. Unfortunately, he noted, that has not yet begun.

As for what Trump’s ideology is with regard for America, I predict we will all be able to articulate it by 2020.

I nearly forgot to mention Carlson’s opinion of the media: ‘dumb’, except for his colleagues at Fox. He told the fire fighters that he has worked for every cable news network and knows whereof he speaks. He said that no one with an ounce of intelligence goes into media. (That should tell us something about students in Media Studies.)

Carlson’s speech was great. He spoke for 13 minutes then took three questions from the audience, for the next 20. He’s much livelier giving a speech than he is in interviews on Tucker Carlson Tonight. And rightly so. This address shows a different side to his personality.

Last week, I posted ‘A new generation renounces the Left’.

A Reddit poster on The_Donald — a Millennial who comments with the user ID CorruptionISTreason — has created a website called MAGA1776, devoted to the president’s progress.

This person has also provided a lengthy and helpful autobiography telling us how his or her worldview has developed over the past three decades. I highly recommend you read ‘My Story’ in full. It is in the lower centre of the page.

Excerpts and a summary follow. Emphases and subheads are mine.

This Millennial is:

an educator in California who grew up to divorced parents and who has mixed race children.

I have family and friends from all walks of life – race, sexuality, religion, and political leanings. I’ve personally held many spiritual, religious, and political view points throughout my life.

I am above all, a thinker. I love investigating topics, learning, and questioning my assumptions and ideas …

This person has found that challenging one’s assumptions may even result in changing one’s outlook on life. Regardless, they say that one becomes more knowledgeable in the process, which can only help.

Early memories

Going back to the Reagan administration — the latter days of the Cold War in the 1980s — what follows are this Millennial’s earliest geopolitical memories:

My earliest childhood memories are of the imposing power of the Soviet Union, the threat of global nuclear war, the subsequent collapse of the USSR, and the following Gulf War. I am an early Millennial. I vividly remember the role the media played in bringing these images into our home. I remember nightly scud missile attacks on Israel, endless reporting on biological and chemical weapons, and the babies being killed in incubators.

Above all, I remember Fear. I was weaned on it.

In the following years I grew to revere my country, for we were not only the saviors of western civilization for defeating the Soviets, but we were liberators. We saved Kuwait and made Saddam end his aggression. We brought peace to Bosnia, Serbia, and the other former nations of Yugoslavia through NATO. Top Gun was my family’s favorite movie.

Fear was replaced by Love.

As this Millennial matured, the political views of family members and other adults began to cloud this patriotism.

The Millennial’s father was born in the earlier half of the Baby Boom years (just after the Second World War ended) and came of age during the Vietnam War and the counter-culture of the late 1960s, which caused him to distrust government. Once he started working, he began to see how government affected his life personally:

my father, above all, hated the Democratic Party and Bill Clinton. He was a Ross Perot supporter and while I was too young to fully grasp what happened to his campaign, and was too naive to fully grasp the nature of the two-party political system, my young mind was waking up.

My father was a rancher and the regulations under Clinton’s presidency were taking away my father’s ability to maintain his livelihood

While my father’s distrust grew, and his ability to support his family failed, my own feelings toward my country changed also.

Education

What this Millennial learned in school further aided scepticism:

California education had instilled a lot of negative feelings in my heart for the past transgressions of our nation against peoples of the world. As I learned of The United States’ involvement in the Philippines, Vietnam, Chile, and elsewhere, I became troubled. I learned of the Military Industrial Complex, began listening to Rage Against The Machine, and I became a Netizen. The impeachment of Bill Clinton and the events of the 2000 presidential election further hardened my heart to our political system.

9/11

Things changed further on September 11, 2001.

The media’s focus altered:

I watched as our leadership and media used the attacks on our soil as a pretext for war.

A vial of anthrax was held up: Fear.

The same media which had brought the Gulf War and the Fake News of babies dying in incubators, now sold the American people a second Gulf War; this time with a side helping of Afghanistan.

As a result, people’s minds did, too:

Friends and family I had known my entire life became pro war. The media sold the initial bombardment as a fireworks show. The People lined up to buy front row tickets. I wasn’t educated enough to understand what was happening, but I sensed the deception and I was deeply disturbed.

Ultimately this remains the most troubled period of my entire life. I became obsessed with learning and I ventured far on the web in pursuit of truth. The Media shouted the words Conspiracy Theory. I didn’t care. I was a Conspiracy Theorist. I was an outsider and I wasn’t afraid to speak my mind about the Rothschilds and the puppet presidents and the assassination of Kennedy.

Adulthood and the Obama years

This Millennial reached adulthood at the end of the previous decade. They got a job, took out a mortgage and raised a family.

In 2008, this person was hopeful of Obama’s candidacy for president. Finally, things would change for the better.

A few years into Obama’s first term:

Something wasn’t right in America.

The promises of 2008 were not materializing like Jon Stewart had assured me they would under the gentle and benevolent leadership of the Left. Banks were not held to account for raiding the coffers of the people. We were still at war. Worse, we were at war with more countries than I could count …

I continued to watch the Media justify the failures of our leader on the opposition party. I knew that Stephen Colbert was right, the Republicans were evil warmongering obstructionist fundamentalists. And like a good citizen, I remained hopeful that their backs could be broken. We could withdraw ourselves from endless conflict, right our financial overrun, and fix the exploding education and health care costs while granting universal access.

Real Communism had never been tried!

Bernie Sanders

In 2016, our Millennial thought that Bernie Sanders would be the ideal president: the man who could not be bought.

However, the enthusiasm was short-lived:

Something wasn’t right in America.

The Media refused to grant Sanders airtime, Super Delegates were falsely included in the vote total, and the DNC refused to hold debates between Sanders and Clinton, or when they did, they were held during other highly televised events to mitigate viewership.

The Millennial signed up to the Reddit forum for Bernie’s supporters. That, too, increased the level of disillusionment, especially with one powerful online arm of Hillary Clinton’s campaign:

This was when I would first learn of CTR – Correct the Record

Suddenly the Internet was filled with Shills

These shills were new and they were obviously well fundedthey attacked Reddit in force. They almost simultaneously attacked Twitter, Facebook, 4chan, and the remaining comment sections that still existed in media outlets across the globe. The common theme was their support for Hillary Clinton.

It was this attack on my access to accurate information that triggered that old nagging feeling.

Each morning I’d see six televisions blaring the same message at me at the gym:

Trump is Racist
Hillary is Winning
Sanders is Losing

Over and over they repeated the narratives. Online, they spammed, harassed, slandered, and down voted.

Now for a personal note, because I was an avid follower online of both of Obama’s campaigns. Because this Millennial was in the Obama camp, they probably did not notice the online harrassment of McCain and Romney supporters in 2008 and 2012, respectively. That, too, was highly organised. It provided the model for Correct The Record.

The way David Axelrod and David Plouffe’s nasty keyboard warriors took down Sarah Palin in 2008, making fun of intelligence by quoting not the vice presidential candidate but Saturday Night Live‘s Tina Fey’s jokes and saying the most vile things about her mentally handicapped baby son was breathtaking in its evil.

They way they called anyone who questioned Obama’s identity or policies racist, sexist, ‘too stupid to live’ or ‘oxygen stealer’ was equally as bad. They really did hound a lot of Independents and Republicans offline. Obama voters never paid the slightest attention to any of this.

It was only to be expected that, because the DNC gave this tactic its blessing in 2008 and 2012, it would be redeployed in 2016.

Media distortions

Our Millennial began studying the media that more closely and could see the control of the narrative whether offline or online.

The Correct The Record army was present online to make sure no one could express any opposition.

But what was real news? Were stories being withheld from American voters on purpose?

All of those instances in my life suddenly came back to me. Shock and awe, the vial, and the babies. Fake News wasn’t the conspiracy theories. Fake News was the Mainstream Media!

Perhaps this seems too obvious, but this was a life shattering event. I realized that there was information that wasn’t being given to me. I wasn’t being allowed to see it.

Democratic National Convention

By the time July 2016 rolled around and the Democratic National Convention took place in Philadelphia, our Millennial knew Sanders could not win the nomination.

Too much had happened during primary season:

Each blow was confirmation to the Truth I had discovered. Virginia voter fraud, Arizona closing over half of its polling stations, wild swings in early and late voting, vote results not corresponding with exit polls. Boom. Boom. Boom.

At the convention, the Democratic National Committee replaced unhappy, angry Sanders supporters in the convention hall with people they had paid to come in and masquerade as Hillary supporters:

I saw as the DNC advertised for, bussed in, and paid people to fill the audience. I watched this on live streams and I watched as the Mainstream Media purposely did not air it.

My generation was stabbed in the back.

Donald Trump

The Millennial then wondered what was going on in the Republican camp with Donald Trump’s campaign.

(We know — and my posts from last autumn documented this in detail — how the media manipulated voters’ perceptions of Trump.)

The Millennial discovered that what the media did to Sanders and was doing to Trump.

What now?

Something really wasn’t right in America.

It seemed clear that I had only two options remaining: disengagement from Politics completely or support for Trump. I was anti-Establishment through and through. I was bred for it – it was in my DNA. Born of a hippy. Once a conspiracy theorist, always a conspiracy theorist. So the choice seemed reasonable at face value.

But was I willing, able, to get behind a racist? A misogynist?

Somebody who had mocked a disabled reporter?

I took several weeks to reflect.

Afterwards:

Cautiously, I returned to Reddit.

I entered the Lion’s Den – www.reddit.com/r/the_donald.

I gorged upon the memes and the Pepes [unofficial frog mascot], and I quickly discovered more. There was Truth.

I had been blind to it before, because I was ideologically driven by a hatred of Republicans to not see their message.

The Millennial discovered the media’s lies about Trump — fully explained — and saw how the media were covering for Hillary.

Ideological Subversion

The Millennial explored the Ideological Subversion that Yuri Bezmenov discussed in his lectures from the 1980s.

By the way, I covered Bezmenov in 2011. Readers might be interested in the following posts:

On protests, defection and the KGB

How Soviet propaganda worked on the US

Four stages of ideological subversion – videos and commentary

Leftists then and now‘there are no grassroots revolutions’

Returning to the Millennial, that person saw that what Bezmenov described is coming true in the United States: ideological subversion. Bezmenov said there are six ideological pillars to be attacked in the Demoralisation phase:

Religion
Economy
Social Life
Power Structure
Labor Relations
Law and Order

You can read the Millennial’s autobiography to gain their understanding of the attacks on those pillars. They added a seventh, which is brilliant:

Gender Identity. The architects of Soviet Ideological Subversion probably couldn’t have dreamed of the place we are at today with Gender Identity. A person unable to reconcile their biology certainly is unfit to maintain a defense against you any longer.

Our Millennial warns that the United States is well into the phase after Demoralisation — Destabilisation:

During this period all conflicts become irreconcilable between individuals and organizations. We are certainly well past this stage. Any union member, HOA member, parent, teacher, employee, or employer can understand where things are at right now. There is no capacity for reason, empathy, or reconciliation between parties anymore.

Individuals would rather terminate a friendship than accept that somebody has an alternate point of view. Facebook has made this entirely too easy.

Discourse is impossible. We are on the edge of Crisis.

Crisis would have led to Normalization which is the suspension of our Rights and the rise of a Totalitarian State.

This playbook has been seen again and again and again – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and more.

Had Hillary won, our Millennial reasons, Crisis surely would have happened because of the machinations not only of the Left, including Democrats, but also the globalist elite:

When I first heard Yuri’s words, it all became so clear.

This isn’t Republican versus Democrat or Capitalist versus
Communist.

This is Ideological Subversion.

This is about Freedom versus Totalitarianism.

However, things changed on Tuesday, November 8, 2016:

We have not had a free election in my lifetime.

Until now.

It is abundantly clear that President Trump stands against these forces. Every move he has made through this process has been to right each of the pillars. Love of Country, Love of God, Unity, Law and Order, Jobs, and returning the power of Government to the People. Every time he gives a speech or interview he reinforces this message. Each of these moments he is consciously unravelling years of damage that has been done to the fabric of our society.

Conclusion

This Millennial has taken the red pill and rightly concludes:

It is time to right the pillars, take back our government, and Drain the Swamp.

President Trump is doing exactly that.

The Establishment stands against our President.

But I, and the People of These United States of America, We stand with Him.

This person has some interesting sections to their website. Tomorrow, we look at one of them.

Tomorrow: Combined infographic with special concentration on Fast and Furious

Fireworks Barking Park londonevents2011_comHappy New Year to all my readers!

2016 proved to be the year of the impossible made possible.

The Brexit vote, the Cubs winning the World Series after 108 years and Donald Trump’s election are only three such examples. We lived through ground-breaking history this year.

Hand of God leedsacukMany people — especially agnostics — commented online that the Hand of God was all over various events that took place. Some of those people returned to the Church. Others, previously unchurched, converted. (The best anecdotal evidence can be found in comments at The_Donald.)

2017 looks even more exciting with regard to change and a break with the past. Light will shine on darkness. Those guilty of lying, malfeasance and indecency will be exposed and shamed. Many God-fearing people will be stunned by what they see in the news. The evil of the past revealed — and the power of the good to come — will cause scoffers to repent.

Therefore, I look forward to the New Year for the first time in decades.

I pray that divine grace and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit imbue and guide each of us in the year ahead. May God bless us all.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post -- not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 -- resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,049 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

December 2017
S M T W T F S
« Nov    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,195,427 hits