Saturday, April 30, 2016

America Does Not Deserve A Bernie Sanders

And While America May Not Deserve A Bernie Sanders, It May Deserve A Donald Trump

It's true. Even though Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Socialist candidate for the Democratic party's presidential nomination, is the truest incarnation of what it means to be a modern-day FDR and could most likely provide the fix our ailing society is in need of, America's shown that it simply doesn't deserve such a good-hearted president. Bernie has more integrity in his little finger than all the fingers of all the other contenders put together. Even when you're only counting the middle ones, as I read your subconscious minds.

Nor, would it seem, does Bernie Sanders deserve to be the one forced to clean up the onerous mess that Hillary's making behind the scenes. To do that, you have to REALLY get down in the mud and call it like it is, and the professorial Bernie seems so incongruous being there. Yet, that's where I've been trying to picture him ever since the first Super Tuesday of 2016, when I knew in my gut (later in my mind) that he had been the true winner of Massachusetts and would have to – sooner-or-later – get down in the mud and call out the electoral fraud going on (even if he didn't name names or outright accusations against Hillary herself; we all know how SuperPACS work, and to have a single well-paid hacker sitting out in the parking lot behind an urban precinct with a laptop is barely a step beyond that).

I know now, and the rest of you should know too, that Bernie is – even at this late stage – still most likely to be the genuine front-runner, and if there had been no shenanigans in most of the contests to-date, this would be reflected in the actual votes the corporate media allows you to see in the pre-arranged kabuki horse-race. How am I assured of this, other than my own (extensive, I say immodestly but truthfully) political observations and participation in the process? One link will tell you:

At this website, we have Richard Charnin's hard research and dedication (Mr. Charnin holds not one but two masters degrees in applied mathematics, no small academic feat), that shows the statistics and provides the analysis behind them to thank for knowing Bernie Sanders has won more primaries (and had them stolen from him) than the Establishment is admitting or disclosing. It's very simple. Bernie is the most serious threat of all, if he is allowed to put his ideas into action (a la FDR, from whose example he really wouldn't deviate that far from). This is why one of the most devious and cold-hearted GOP financiers – Charles Koch – even went so far as to dam him with faint praise early on so as to give Bernie the 'kiss of death' before the Establishment could be assured the preferred horse (er, donkey? jackass?) Hillary Clinton could be relied upon.

In Charnin's research, we see that it is primarily in urban, mostly African-American precincts that utilize Optiscan or Diebold machines (there's at least a third brand, just like there are tons of other necessary factoids needed to understand the situation) that Clinton vote totals seem to come up 'long', as opposed to the short stature they come up in the raw exit polls in those same precincts. Charnin has gone into succinct detail on his website as to why the public doesn't hear those 'raw' totals, but note that they are only 'raw' when they don't comport with the actual vote (as recorded by the electronic machines) and have to then be 'adjusted' to reflect those machine totals.

In other words, when the exit polls reflect the final machine totals, there's no need for 'raw' numbers; the exit polls do what they're supposed to do – help project the winner before-hand, and assure the public there hasn't been any “hanky-panky”. Unfortunately, the second function has been changed to let the media know they need to 'adjust' them, to better match the reality of machine totals that seem to flagrantly make liars out of the exit polls (who pays for them, anyway, right? right? Ugh!)

This is a tip-off to the corporate media that they will have to help cover up a stolen election.

Florida 2000 was the worst example of this, along with Ohio 2004; this year's poster child, as Charnin duly notes, is Arizona. There was such chaos, chaos planned for far in advance by the Establishment when they purposefully kept approx. 85% of the usual precincts closed, that they didn't even bother with the charade of doing ANY exit polling (with the sole exception being the county of Yavapai, who's Daily Courier newspaper conducted the one exit poll we are forced to rely on....hey if you expect us to swallow such irrationality about closing all those other precincts, you'll have to accept the small sample you left us with). In that one exit poll, we have Bernie beating Hillary by 63% to 37%, but the final machine total was 54% Hillary to 43% Bernie.

That, my friends, is NOT within the “margin of error”. And it are facts like that, statistical anomalies, that belie any notion that we are having a fair election. In fact, you can study the statistics and research Charnin has painstakingly detailed and come away with the realization that the results all show probabilities in excess of all rationality. Any digit with 16 zeroes either in front of or behind it is an unreasonable probability of mere “voting irregularities”. The only state in Charnin's list that I would conservatively leave out of Bernie's genuine 'win' column would be Ohio, which had only a probability of being won by Bernie of 11%, but I also have to stress that mere winning the popular vote isn't as important (other than morally) as the translation the vote has for delegates is. In fact, even in some states where Bernie has won either a primary or a caucus, somehow Madame Secretary STILL seemed to come out with more delegates.

Where does much of this stench of corruption come from? Can we justifiably point the finger at the one person who would have the most power over the process? If we can, then we can state that the probability of this being done with the connivance of the chairwoman of the Democratic Party, one Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was at one time spokeswoman for the Hillary For President in 2008 campaign. Did your eyes widen? If not, it's because you probably already knew that, but didn't spend much time considering that it would have to be with her assistance that operatives were placed in position to access the voting machines, the voter rolls, the planned elimination of voting machines and precincts in Arizona, etc. “But she's too attractive, she looks like an angel, she's so no-nonsense, she sounds so innocent”, you say. Oh really? Never underestimate the power – or the determination, even at the expense of justice, fairness, and all legality – of a woman. (Or a man for that matter.)

My purpose here isn't to repeat the details in Richard Charnin's well-worded, and thoroughly well-researched statistical analysis of the Democratic primary process to-date, but to say that there is so much corruption involved and so few people even discussing it that I have to conclude that either a) America is experiencing mass-hypnosis and mind-control on such a scale that it boggles our already-bamboozled minds, b) Americans have been pushed around so much that only the boisterousness and braggadocio of a Donald Trump can marshal the anger requisite to take down the suppressive Establishment, c) we have become largely a society of eye-rolling and buck-passing shoulder-shruggers that have little interest in the opinions of others, or even their own civil liberties. If we can string more than a few neurons together on the subject, we either choose “right-wing talk radio” or the smug musings of what passes for the intelligentsia these days, despite the proliferation of social media. There's BOUND to be some academically-trained neo-journalist given space in a niche on the Huffington Post who's opinion you can adopt, surely. My point is that there seems to be little in-depth contemplation of civic matters, which is why it's far easier to slink back to the use of ridicule to put back in their place those who were challenging the Establishment.

Which brings us to Donald Trump, the center-right populist who may be the only hope of wrestling away the control of the masses by the frauds who have kept us in the dark for at least a century (I'm thinking specifically of the fraudulent and privately-held Federal Reserve and the ancillary organizations that were foisted upon us at the behest of the same group of shadowy men, organizations like the FBI and the ADL, the IRS and the CFR). No, I don't view Trump as a desirable alternative to Bernie, but if Bernie isn't able to stand up for his own voters by calling out what is screaming to be exposed, then it will take a Donald Trump who can. Ostensibly he was encouraged to get into the race finally by the same Puppet-master (the quadrillionaire in Switzerland who owns much of Earth, but who's overt control is hard to exert with enough finesse lately) as a way to help expose the Bush and Clinton 'crime cabals' that have been complicit in the crime of hiding the looting of the gold in Ft. Knox. That may well be the only way we will have of achieving some form of justice, at least some form of accountability, even if the only punishment meted out to those bastards is one of shaming them in public and in court.

It needs to be done. Finally.

Bernie, we love you and will continue to vote for you when the choice is only between you and Hillary, but the “fix has been in” and enough votes stolen from you to prevent you from ever reaching the Ofal Office. Unless, that is, you run as an independent candidate. If so, at least a third of us will continue to support you as long as you choose to run, on whatever ticket – despite Jane's poor choice of words concerning “voter irregularities”. However, I hear that Jesse Ventura, who will have no compunction about calling out the pro-Hillary vote-stealing operation, has said he will run as a third-party independent candidate if Hillary is allowed to steal your nomination from you.

In that event, I expect you will let Jesse take up the cause, which would probably also assure Trump's election. Has it occurred to anyone outside of the.....uhm.....”truth-seeking community” of “conspiracy realists” that FBI Director Comey may be taking “as much time as necessary” for a reason? [Translation: the whole time between now and the nominating conventions, when the criminal indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton is guaranteed to have maximum destructive value, culminating in the death knell of the modern Democratic Party and guaranteed to usher in a President Trump.]

And even in that eventuality, I doubt the 2016 presidential election will be held in November as scheduled. It may not even be held at all, regardless of what happens (or doesn't) to Hillary. Now if that surprises you in the least, you'll have to wait for my next post to explain exactly why. Hint: It has more to do with a general than a former Secretary of State.