by James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
The United States of America, as to a greater or lesser extent other western democracies in-name-only, is today, like a perfectly-good sponge might be when saturated with a cyanide solution, contaminated thereby. There is nothing basically wrong with the sponge itself; it is the cyanide that is the problem.
The best and clearest (though far from the only) example of this most-thorough contamination and spoilage of which I am aware is the ever-more-rotten electoral process, the operation and outcome of which, of course, quite literally determines the outcome of almost everything else. This is something very distressing that I’ve mentioned here before; but the subject is of such overriding importance as to bear further exploration.
The set of conditions involved such as can be readily accessed in cyberspace would stun Orwell by both their immediacy and their audacity. Basically, their vileness is practiced out in the open, and the precise circumstances, although certainly not some of the practices, are unique to this year’s presidential contest.
The first outstanding circumstance started years ago with the beguiling of a young progressive-by-appearance political chameleon activist from birth, a sometime “Goldwater girl” named Hillary Rodham, by the same neo-Nazi elitist internationalist “intellectuals” who also beguiled her new husband at the time, Bill, the Arkansas wonder-boy and his super-prolific teacher/mentor, Carroll Quigley before him, to become favored adopted spawn of the American affiliate Council on Foreign Relations, the hatchery of American militarist foreign policy.
Politically, Ms. Rodham Clinton has proven conveniently to be a lot like the unflavored Jello my mom used to buy – she can blithely (and rather notoriously) assume any flavoring or content needed to advance her, secure the praise of her adoptive highfalutin multi-billionaire “cohorts”, and almost imperceptibly deliver them in return the favors and discretionary control their fawning support entitles them to. Note, I said almost imperceptibly, because she tends to be so sloppily nonchalant in trying to cover it up that people who look at all closely are often startled to practically observe that happening or follow its trail in broad daylight.
And so she’s stumbled her inept, unprincipled, frequently bad-tempered way through enough placements and experiences to attract the cachet of “experienced”, which is invoked unendingly by her own numerous fawning, tone-deaf train of acolytes, while her neocon (neo-Nazi) attachments have made her disastrously pro-war all the time, in the riskiest sort of way of any serious presidential candidate since James K. Polk.
As I have said, lots of people have seen through her constant and characteristic machinations and manipulations (and I’m not talking about her partisan knee-jerk haters – I. after all, am a normally-progressive sometime-Democrat (as are Susan Sarandon, Ben Jealous, Cenk Uygur, etc.). She got one of her top acolytes, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, appointed chair of the national Democratic Party, and Wasserman-Schultz made damn sure anyone who dared oppose her in the primaries would get totally shafted on voter exposure and debate scheduling, and irregularities (including outright felony election fraud) started showing up early in state after state in the running and counting of their DNP-sponsored primaries and caucuses.
In at least 11 states, the privately-owned and programmed, restricted-access voting machines used must have been programmed to flip or nullify her opponents’ votes, because the announced final tallies, invariably favoring Clinton in those states, differed wildly from the normally-accurate exit poll results, so that she was declared the winner and recipient of most of the delegates in states where she had struggled to fill school gymnasiums and church basements with local followers at her rallies, while her opponent regularly filled stadiums with exuberant overflow crowds.
And that’s how she “won” – all the while under ultimately feckless FBI criminal investigation into her, as it turned out, open-source State Department emails. And the deleted, but hacked giant trove of DNC and Clinton emails delivered in a first installment this week by Wikileaks details in part, forbodingly, what else she, the national Democratic Party, and the campaign she headed did.
And now, her defeated opponent (who probably defeated her, truth be told, with the nationwide primary electorate) is expected to meekly concede and turn over his delegates to her. And in the attempt to at least defeat the “awful” Mr. Trump and save America from that fate, her opponent predictably will (and by now has done) – all the while seeming smilingly oblivious to the citizen-mounted election fraud lawsuits playing out on his behalf, doomed and slower than snail’s-pace.
Oh, and, by the date of the massive California primary, at the end of the primary season in June, the DNC had put a complete stop to the embarrassing exit polls exposing the sham results in so many of the earlier contests.
It’s been pointed out that, in foreign elections, which the U.S. State Department (not long ago headed by HRC herself) routinely monitors, a deviation in the announced results of more than 2% from the results of the exit polls will cause the elections to be thrown out, or at least not recognized by the U.S. or accepted internationally, due to confirmed fraud.
So, the question arises, who would support this ill-reputed, untrusted, shall we say thoroughly reviled by a majority presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton? What gives such an obvious ringer of a nominee even a ghost of a chance against the candidate of the other major party? Of course, only one factor – the identity of the other major candidate, the said to be as well universally-reviled, foul-mouth, loud-mouth, insulting widely reputed right-wing hate-monger billionaire builder and developer Donald J. Trump, deftly role-caste as the candidate even Hillary Rodham Clinton could beat in the vituperous cage-match-to-the-death we are about to witness – the outcome of which may well depend on which side controls the most voting machines.
Then, assuming for a moment a somewhat fair count, what if we the people, the voters, don’t go along with the élite’s deal, of seeing Trump, all in all, as just too, too bad? What if we decide to take our chances with this odious-and-to-be-every-day-
made-more-odious Trump, rather than the (to them) only somewhat reeking international criminal, faded empty-pantsuit wonder-vessel so confidently thrust in our faces? What if we, like the Brits, say a considered, close, but in its result resounding and impudent “no” and stick our fingers in the clever controllers’ eyes, opting to pick up the pieces and recover over the years to come? Why don’t we just try that? And you abroad can watch us.