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:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/2016-election/
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.
