Failed former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is now directly questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 elections, citing the discredited deep state narrative that Donald Trump worked with the Russians as one of her reasons despite the fact that her own campaign colluded with “Russian sources” to spread disinformation about President Trump through what would eventually become known as the “Trump dossier.”
Clinton made the comments in a wide ranging interview with the always friendly Mother Jones Senior Reporter Ari Berman where she stated that there are many questions about the actual legitimacy of the last presidential election in which she lost.
During the interview Berman asked Clinton, “So between the Republican voter suppression you talked about and Russian interference, do you think it was a legitimate election?”
“I think that there are lots of questions about its legitimacy, and we don’t have a method for contesting that in our system. That’s why I’ve long advocated for an independent commission to get to the bottom of what happened. Because, look, this is the first time we’ve ever been attacked by a foreign adversary, and then they suffer no real consequences,” Clinton replied.
“And so, I’m worried that we’re not learning all the lessons, it’s one of the reasons why I wrote the book. Because I wanted people at least to understand what I saw as the factors, including shortcomings of myself and my campaign. But the forces at work outside my campaign are not going away. Somebody else is going to be running for Congress, or governor, or eventually president. We’ve got to know how to protect ourselves.”
Berman then attempted to get Clinton to double down by specifically clarifying that she was stating she had questions about the election itself. Clinton happily obliged.
“I do, sure. Because I think, as we learn more about it, we know that the web of connections between people on Trump’s team and Russian representatives just gets more and more dense.”
The interview is flabbergasting to say the least, especially when you consider that some of the reasons cited by Clinton are literally exactly what she and her campaign actually carried out themselves!
Remember, it has already been revealed that Clinton’s campaign paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to find dirt on then candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired former British spy Christopher Steele who turned to his admittedly Russian sources to come up with the now infamous Trump dossier.
“That’s right, in a literal reverse of what the entire mainstream media has fed the American people for over a year, we now have evidence that, either wittingly or unwittingly, the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for what amounted to disinformation that came directly from “Russian sources,” I reported for SHTFplan in an article about Hillary’s collusion with Russia.
“Obviously this may seem truly unbelievable to some, but the facts speak for themselves and there is no denying that Democrats paid a shady opposition research company to try and dig up dirt on Donald Trump who then subsequently hired former British spy Christopher Steele. Steele then openly used Russian sources for most of the serious allegations in the Russia dossier.”
Amazingly, it was the mainstream media themselves that revealed that Steele’s paid sources were Russians, long before it was confirmed that the Clinton campaign had paid for the entire operation.
Buried deep in a report by Vanity Fair that spends thousands of words trying to pretend that the dossier could be legitimate, is this nugget that paints a picture of direct or indirect collusion between the Clinton team and Russia.
How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with Simpson: Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” And both of these insiders, after “speaking to a trusted compatriot,” would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.
Source E was “an ethnic Russian” and “close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump.”
It is cut and dry. Hillary Clinton is now attempting to stir up even more anti-Trump sentiment by questioning the election itself when there is documented evidence that money from her campaign was used to gather disinformation from Russia to hurt Donald Trump.
This is a confirmed reality yet Clinton was predictably not questioned on this shocking hypocrisy by the liberal reporter who most likely shares Clinton’ reverse reality beliefs as well.
Attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck’s office received a call just before 5PM on Thursday from an individual who was apparently using a ‘robotic and genderless’ voice changing device, sniffing around with questions about the DNC lawsuit filed over cheating in the 2016 election. The suit – based on documents released by hacker Guccifer 2.0, claims that the DNC colluded with Sec. Hillary Clinton’s campaign ‘to perpetrate a fraud on the public.’ (see more here)
After a brief chat with the law firm’s secretary, the ‘mysterious’ voice-masking caller concluded the call with an ‘Okey dokey.’
And whose number showed up when the law firm turned around and googled the number from the caller ID? Why, who else but Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Aventura office!
(POPEYE) Down The Rabbit Hole w/ Popeye (11-12-2016). On this edition of DTRH Popeye welcomes back to the broadcast independent journalists, filmmakers, radio show hosts, and family Aaron and Melissa Dykes. The three of them discuss a few topics including but not limited to: The 2016 Election Results; The Reaction of The MSM; The Reaction of Hillary Clinton Voters; The Neocons Injecting Themselves Into The Inner Circle of The Presidency Already; Mass Mind Control; The King Alfred Plan; Robots Taking Over The Workforce; OBSOLETE; The Feeling of Being In a Different Timeline Since The Day After The Election, and much more. Take the time and listen to this awesome broadcast.
LINKS TO FURTHER RESEARCH, THE ARCHIVE PAGES, FACEBOOK & TWITTER
(POPEYE) Down The Rabbit Hole w/ Popeye (11-12-2016). On this edition of DTRH Popeye welcomes back to the broadcast independent journalists, filmmakers, radio show hosts, and family Aaron and Melissa Dykes. The three of them discuss a few topics including but not limited to: The 2016 Election Results; The Reaction of The MSM; The Reaction of Hillary Clinton Voters; The Neocons Injecting Themselves Into The Inner Circle of The Presidency Already; Mass Mind Control; The King Alfred Plan; Robots Taking Over The Workforce; OBSOLETE; The Feeling of Being In a Different Timeline Since The Day After The Election, and much more. Take the time and listen to this awesome broadcast.
LINKS TO FURTHER RESEARCH, THE ARCHIVE PAGES, FACEBOOK & TWITTER
(POPEYE) Down The Rabbit Hole w/ Popeye (11-12-2016). On this edition of DTRH Popeye welcomes back to the broadcast independent journalists, filmmakers, radio show hosts, and family Aaron and Melissa Dykes. The three of them discuss a few topics including but not limited to: The 2016 Election Results; The Reaction of The MSM; The Reaction of Hillary Clinton Voters; The Neocons Injecting Themselves Into The Inner Circle of The Presidency Already; Mass Mind Control; The King Alfred Plan; Robots Taking Over The Workforce; OBSOLETE; The Feeling of Being In a Different Timeline Since The Day After The Election, and much more. Take the time and listen to this awesome broadcast.
LINKS TO FURTHER RESEARCH, THE ARCHIVE PAGES, FACEBOOK & TWITTER
Other than people who tend to have incredibly high tolerances for pain, most Americans are sick to death of hearing about the alleged Russian hack of the 2016 election from the Democrats, the lack of any such attack from most Republicans, or if there was in fact a hack, the effect that said hack may or may not have had on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election…
At this point, most Americans are either politely saying “uncle” under their breath, or they’re screaming “ENOUGH ALREADY!!!” It’s like democrats are stuck on one of two audio recordings on any given day. When they’re not chanting in unison, “Make America Sick Again,” they’re mumbling something about the “integrity of our election system.”
This post is intended to silence anyone and everyone who is still going on about the latter. For a party SO concerned with outside parties meddling in our elections, Democrats have never had a single word to say about George Soros, and all his meddling in our election process, presumably because his meddling has always been 100% in their favor.
Enough is enough already!!! The video below utterly annihilates the Democrats argument about their concern for the “integrity of our election system.” It does so by starting with a post just released on former Congressman Allen West’s website, and adds numerous layers of supporting evidence to the existing article. The next time you hear a Democrat or a Hillary supporter talking about the alleged Russian hack, send them a link to this post and tell them to stifle it, pronto!
Whether or not there was Russian state influence in our U.S. presidential election remains a topic of debate — depending on which side of the fence you stand. The man behind Wikileaks, Julian Assange, denies his source was either Russian or had any state backing, but perhaps one could argue his source was supplied information from a Russian source.
Former British ambassador Craig Murray confirms DNC and Podesta leaks were the work of a Washington insider; and says he knows identity and has met with this person. FBI meanwhile casts doubt on CIA claim DNC and Podesta leaks were the work of Russia.
Craig Murray, Britain’s former ambassador to Russia and a close friend of Julian Assange, has now confirmed that he knows the identity of the person who leaked the DNC and Podesta leaks to Wikileaks, and that this person is not Russian and has no connection to the Russian government.
Regardless, even if there was Russian interference in the election, can you blame them? “BREAKING: Russians supported candidate who opposed war with Russia.”
“The writing is on the wall, and unlike the American people, Putin actually sees it. If Hillary Clinton gets elected President there is going to be a war, and it’s a war Putin wants no part of.”
Obama and Hillary are both puppets of their globalist masters like theRothschild’sand George Soros, both of whom hate Putin, and whom Putin equally despises. Check out THIS VIDEO for more details supporting those relationships. The video will further tie BarackObama and Hillary Clinton to the New World Order’sRothschildfamily, as well asGeorge Soros...
Recently Soros documents that were made public by Wikileaks confirm just about everything many of us “conspiracy theorists” have been saying all along. The Duran writes:
The recent DC Leaks, of over 2,500 documents from George Soros NGOs, has shed a bright light on how the billionaire uses his vast wealth to create global chaos in an never ending push to deliver his neo-liberal euphoria to the peasant classes.
While Soros has managed to thoroughly, destabilize the European Union by promoting mass immigration and open borders, divided the United States by actively funding Black Lives Matters and corrupting the very corruptible US political class, and destroyed Ukraine by pushing for an illegal coup of a democratically elected government using neo-nazi strong men…one country that Soros has not bee able to crack has been The Russian Federation.
Said another way, Russia and Putin are Soros’ mythical white whale…a creature he has been trying to capture and kill-off for nearly a decade. When Putin took his forces into Syria to protect a sovereign state he further enhanced his reputation as a powerful leader, and only made Soros & Co. more angry.
Even worse for the New World Order than Putin’s emergence as a defiant and powerful leader, is that he’s also leading the world in a more multi-polar direction, far from the one government,one government, one religion future plotted by the globalists like theRothschild’sand George Soros. Recall what Soros said in September:
The fact is, despite the horrific gasps from the Left about Russia intentionally trying to scupper Hillary Clinton’s campaign (which she seemed quite capable of doing herself), they’re no strangers to a little election meddling themselves.
Remember it was B. Hussein Obama who sent operatives to Israel in an attempt to upend Benjamin Netanyahu’s election.
And there was another creepy meddler who got basically zero media attention after his email account was hacked. Yes our friend, George Soros.
Per Investor’s Business Daily: Leaked documents released (in August) provide juicy insider details of how a fabulously rich businessman has been using his money to influence elections in Europe, underwrite an extremist group, target U.S. citizens who disagreed with him, dictate foreign policy, and try to sway a Supreme Court ruling, among other things. Pretty compelling stuff, right?Not if it involves leftist billionaire George Soros. In this case, the mainstream press couldn’t care less.
A group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros’ Open Society Foundations’ servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information. We couldn’t find a single story on the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News or other major news sites that even noted the existence of these leaked documents, let alone reported on what’s in them.
The leaked documents show how Soros’ far-flung international organizations attempted to manipulate Europe’s 2014 elections. The “List of European Elections 2014 Projects” details over 90 Soros efforts he had under way that year. The documents reveal that Soros has poured nearly $4 million into anti-Israel groups, with a goal of “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies.” Here at home, they show that Soros proposed paying the Center for American Politics $200,000 to conduct a smear campaign against conservative activists.
More recently,an October 2015 documentcame to light showing that Soros’ Open Society U.S. Programs had donated $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.” Since then, several BLM protests have turned violent. That same document details how this group successfully used its “extensive networks” to pressure the Obama administration into increasing the number of refugees it would take to 100,000, despite concerns that Islamic terrorists could use the refugee program to infiltrate the U.S.
In the post referenced above, the leaks reference a new Soros backed group that what formed with the intent of beingmore stealthy, and more politically correct than groups like Black Lives Matter, and Moveon.org.
“Demos,” as with most beneficiaries of Soros’ largesses, was intended to operate underSaul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”with the aim of accomplishing the following:
1. Freedom to Vote: In addition, the freedom to vote, in this case, is double-speak for the freedom of non-citizens to take part in US elections
2. The inception of both UN Agendas-21 and-30, whichseeks toeradicate National sovereignty to the United Nations in favor of a globally controlled centralized government
3. Transforming the public narrative to elevate the values of community and racial equity.” Essentially, that is a gentler way of alluding to the elimination of US free speech and America’s individual 1st amendment rights, the same way they have already been augmented in Europe, where critics of Islam are actually charged and incarcerated.
A separate memo details how Soros tried to use his clout to sway Supreme Court justices into approving President Obama’s unilateral effort to rewrite immigration law. “Grantees are seeking to influence the Justices (primarily via a sophisticated amicus briefs and media strategy) in hopes of securing a favorable ruling in U.S. v Texas,” the memo, dug up bythe Daily Caller, states.
When Soros speaks, Clinton listens. A separate email released by WikiLeaks shows Soros giving what read like step-by-step instructions to then-Secretary of State Clinton on how to deal with unrest in Albania in early 2011, including a list of people who should be considered as candidates to become an official mediator sent to that country. Days later, the EU dispatched one of the people on Soros’ list.
THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.
“If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.”
Despite the contentious candidates, insipid scandals, insidious corruption, raucous rallies, deleterious diatribes, and all-around farcical shit storm of a dystopian presidential election cycle — with all its rigged opprobrium — millions of Americans will cast aside logic, pull the wool over their eyes, and angrily take to the polls on Tuesday.
Because illusions about participating in a loosely-defined democratic kleptocracy — hammered into our brains through indoctrination equating voting to patriotic duty — have replaced the higher call to critically consider the magnitude of this mess, people still think voting matters.
But voting — at least for the foreseeable future — isn’t mandatory.
We’ve been led to believe this illusion of options veiling the tightly-wrought control of limited dissent represents ouronlyhope for a new term’s better legislation and governance — when the mechanisms behind that veil instead operate purely with their own enrichment and survival in mind.
Sure, people might play the lesser-evil card to justify voting for any one of these criminals and hypocrites, including those trying the third-party route, but the 2016 election cycle — with all its incendiary madness — has handily proven the need for massive reform.
You might be one of the innumerable weary voters begrudgingly heading to the polls to cast a vote for your preferred lesser literal evil — wondering why you continue participating in this exercise of utter futility.
There is good news. Something you likely haven’t considered. Something so revolutionary, it might not have flirted with your other considerations — but so freeing and fundamental in its simplicity, it has a reputation for slaying longheld ideologies and extricating those who choose it from the emotional conflict inherent in lesser-evilism.
Just don’t vote.
Don’t participate in a system claiming to uphold your freedoms while simultaneously quashing them through the trick of severely circumscribed choices. And before you flatly reject this concept for radicalism, consider the following albeit partial list fleshing out why abstaining from the vote isn’t actually as kooky as you think.
1. Voting only validates the failing system. By casting a vote, you’re telling politicians you accept things the way they are — one of the worst educational programs in the Western world, a healthcare system mashup benefiting overgrown pharmaceutical and insurance companies, militarized police, and so on.
2. Voting for a lesser of two evils — which the largest swath of the voting public will do today — equates an acceptance of evil. Just because one candidate seems on the surface to be less horrendous than the other, doesn’t mean the other isn’t also horrendous in their own right. When you continue, election after election, to vote for the lesser evil, evil always wins.
3. Are you pro-war? Do you want young Americans to travel abroad to kill other nations’ civilians, and be killed themselves, for hegemonic usurpation of natural resources for the profit of government welfare-backed corporations, Big Banks, and industries? This is not defense of the country. This is not fighting for freedom. This is hubristic imperialism enforced by unadulterated violence. When you vote, you support needless war and death.
4. Voting is state-sponsored force. In every nation, and particularly the U.S., people have stark differences in values, religion, beliefs, ideology, culture — the list is endless. By casting a ballot, you’re forcing your specific set of beliefs onto everyone — whether or not they agree. If your chosen lesser evil wins, the opposite is true — that is, even if that candidate follows through on their campaign vows … which brings us to …
5. Presidential candidates are advertisers — they excel at propagandizing themselves as a tidy package of promises — but they rarely, if ever, follow through. President Obama originally ran on a platform of starkoppositionto the Iraq War, and even somehow won the Nobel Peace Prize — but the U.S. military never left Iraq — and his administration justsenthundreds more troops there to fight. Campaign promises, by design, deceive voters into thinking things will be different ‘this time’ — voting is a display of gullibility.
6. When you vote, the establishment wins. Always. In fact, the establishment’s only interest is self-preservation. This time around, Hillary Clinton obviously embodies establishment principles — but if you bought Donald Trump’s anti-establishment rhetoric (see number 5), you’ve been duped already. Not only does he have a longstanding relationship with the Clintons — which should’ve tipped off the attentive among us — in just one example, Trump plans toappoint a Goldman Sachs-George Soros insiderwho has donated large sums to Clinton’s campaign as Treasury Secretary. Soros, as you might be aware, is a billionaire globalist and extreme left-leaning influencer of foreign policy — which brings us to …
7. Voters are presented with two choices, blue or red — but they’ll get purple either way. American politics are a duopoly, and though slight differences on social issues indeed exist, larger institutional matters — militarized police, education, the military-industrial machine, private prisons, etc. — are a general constant driving the rest. Thanks to the bottomless pockets of lobbyists, nothing substantial ever changes.
8. Voting tells the international community Americans recognize the legitimacy of the system — with all its flaws, fraud, corruption, and collusion included. If the masses refused to vote, other nations would be alerted something has gone awry in the U.S. — and would not consider the election legitimate. Whatever candidate then attempted to take office would be considered a dictator, and if no one did, the failed system would be dismantled — providing a clean slate for something entirely new.
9. Voting constitutes the tacit acknowledgement mob rule is a fabulous concept. When the majority elects a candidate, the minority loses. Voting tells the world you’re just peachy forcing your views on others — by force. Who needs rogue mobs of violent extortionists roaming the streets to impose the will of a few on the many, when you have— oh. Wait. That’s the police.
10. Voting substantiates corporate influence over the legislative system. Not only were corporations granted personhood through the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United to allow unfettered campaign donations through corrupt Super PACs, but their uber-wealthy executives can do the same. Your vote doesn’t have any meaning if you can’t back a candidate by propping up their campaign with oodles of cash. Period.
11. Your vote for a candidate whose platform (see number 5) you aren’t in complete agreement with validates bad policy. Saying, ‘I like Candidate X, except for their stance on social policy A — but Candidate Y is really terrible’ does not a viable argument make. Especially considering …
12. No one really knows the candidates’ platforms anyway. Relying on the propaganda and rhetoric each spews during debates, rallies, interviews, and ads to understand what each will do once in the White House (see number 6) is akin to learning brain surgery from YouTube — you might think you know, but in practice, things could go very wrong. Most voters don’t even bother visiting the candidates’ websites to dig deeper — and might be quite unpleasantly surprised if they did. Not that informing yourself about what a candidate won’t do anyway actually matters.
13. Voting is a sham. Though today is officially Election Day, early voters have already reported electronic voting machines magically switching votes — or flat out preventing people from choosing the politicians they want. Confusing ballot setups further mystify voters, as well. Not that paper ballots fared any better — those old enough will immediately, but not fondly, recall the hanging chad fiasco in utterly disastrous overall debacle of the 2000 election. Speaking of that…
14. Your vote isn’t necessarily up to you, anyway. For example, in an exceedingly simplified rundown of the 2000 presidential election, an extremely close popular vote in Florida — worsened by ballot problems (see 13) — led Al Gore to challenge the results in court. Eventually, the United States Supreme Court intervened — but its decision a mere two hours prior to Florida’s deadline to finalize the vote tally essentially decided the national election in favor of George W. Bush. Many felt Gore would have won had a recount, or another election, been performed — particularly if undervotes, those the machines couldn’t read, had been hand counted. Oh well. So much for the value of the vote.
15. Voting for a third party candidate just isn’t the rebellion you’ve been led to believe. That politician is as much a politician as those representing the duopoly — further, once that third party politician sits in the Oval Office, they’re as bound to follow the same establishment rules, and look to the same establishment Congress, as anyone. A third party candidate might seem different than their red or blue counterparts, but you’re still casting a vote for the failed system.
Additionally, to address the naysayers, voting third party isn’t throwing your vote away when no votes have inherent worth. No vote is in itself an act of rebellion when all votes are a futile participation in the illusion.
16. If you don’t vote, the irate masses warn, you aren’t fulfilling your civic duty — but the masses are simply stuck in the delusion that voting matters and don’t grasp the concept of coercive force. In no way is it your duty to impose your views on anyone by voting for this farcical system enriching the few at the cost of oppressing the many. Ire against non-voters only evidences exactly this point.
Further, the choice to not vote isn’t a privilege of a particular race, despite claims to the contrary. Telling someone you don’t have the luxury of abstaining from the election shows an absurd ignorance of the mechanisms of our system of governance. No matter who sits at the helm, the stratification of wealth will continue, the militarization of police will intensify, and legislators will write into law policies benefiting the upper crust.
17. Refusing to vote gives you both a clean conscience — and the right to complain.
Wait … what??
It’s true. Despite the myth that if you don’t vote you can’t complain, the absolute contrary is actually true. To explain this concept to the skeptics, take it from the late, great, visionary comedian, George Carlin:
“If you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around, I know. They say, well, ‘if you don’t vote you have no right to complain’ — but where’s the logic in that?
“If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You’ve caused the problem. You’ve voted them in. You have no right to complain.
“I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who, in fact, did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain as loud as I want about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”
* * *
This Election Day, vacate the vote, stop participating in the illusion, learn to rule yourself and lead your community. Stop giving rulers an excuse to run your life the way they — not you — see fit.
