Third Term, Part Two

With one of the most colorful presidential elections in recent history well under way, and with polls indicating "None of the Above" may get as many votes as the Republican and Democrat party candidates, we may face a unique situation.  A lot of folks are tired of the whole process, and they tend to be same ones who usually tire of political races.  Some folks are on fire, as they rightly see this election as a last chance to preserve a constitutional republic type of government.   As I posted yesterday, HRC's health will be a pivotal factor in this race, and should she pass away post-election, but pre-inaugural, a major decision of how to proceed will be left to the Kenyan.  And that's not good for those of us on the constitutional republic side.  

But what if HRC is now incapacitated to the point of being in a non responsive coma, or perhaps even dead already?  The Democrat party may be already be planing a sequel to Weekend At Bernie's as they pretend she's still alive, propped up in a van perhaps, or replaced by a very convincing body double.  That fraud is a criminal act, of course, but this is the Clinton/Obama/Chicago crime machine we're dealing with after all.  So while all this chaos and uncertainty gives many folks pause, and given the state sponsored media is less than forthcoming when it comes to negative information about the democrats, or HRC in particular, one can certainly speculate freely.  And the wildest speculation may be spot on at the end of the day.

But even more troubling than having a holographic candidate is what the Kenyan's regime plans for the voting process.  Citing false flag situations, such as the presumed Russian hacking of US intelligence systems, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has what he considers a solution: He wants to use his authority under a post-9/11 federal law designed to protect the country against terrorist attacks to designate the election system as “critical infrastructure.” With electronic voting, any manipulation of the result is easy; and not only possible, but probable.  A simpler solution is a return to paper ballots in this writer's view.  But we simply cannot have voters determining election outcomes, now can we?

While this redefining the entire election process to be under the watchful eye of DHS  is intellectually interesting, it's still a big, big liberty problem.  By elevating the election and vote counting process to a "critical infrastructure", the federal government - that means the Kenyan - can simply manage - that means manipulate  - the elections results.  How reassuring. 

So under this newly decreed government authority, if we elect Donald Trump, the Kenyan will cite fraud and irregularities in the vote count, and by virtue of the 2013 presidential directive nullify or suspend the election results.  

If on the other hand, we elect a ghost, or a mere holograph, the Kenyan will be tasked with making a decision as to who - if anyone - will succeed him as 45th President of the United States.  And remember he's stated repeatedly that he really doesn't want to be succeeded.

As an update to my post of yesterday, it certainly appears that the Democrats, and this president specifically, are kicking out all the stops to hold onto power, and to defeat the populist movement that so threatens the globalists' agenda. 

And absent armed revolution, they just may succeed.

The Kenyan's 3rd Term: How He'll Do It

The Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for election and overall time of service to the office of President of the United States.  Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947, and it was ratified by the requisite 36 of the then 48 states on February 27, 1951. Whew!  So we are saved from another disastrous term of the Kenyan's destructive administration, right?

Wait just a minute.  Not so fast.

It's common knowledge that the Kenyan isn't too keen on receding into private life after his second term, as he has affirmatively indicated, so how can a self absorbed psychopathic narcissist circumvent the Constitution and enable himself to continue holding the reins of power?  There's an answer to that, as we shall see.

Let's start with the Democrat Party's presidential candidate, one Hillary Rodham Clinton. After all the ill will and blood letting between her and the Kenyan in both 2008 and 2012 campaigns, how is it that these two are now so lovingly aligned?  Can it be ascribed to simply party loyalty?  Or of mending of fences?  Hardly.

The stage is already being set for Hillary to either win - or contest the results of - the 2016 election.  Two plausible scenarios of doubt and discontent begin to fall into place:  Russia will hack the election in favor of Trump (although there's not a shred of evidence to support this, it's still being floated by left wing media.  Putin actually would most likely prefer HRC as the US leader given their already established cozy relationship); Soros will manipulate the voting results in favor of Hillary because he in fact controls the company that provides many of the voting machines.  Other conspiracy theories include a major attack on the US will result in election suspension; or civil unrest or a financial crisis will render a similar result, or the Kenyan will simply pull a coupe d'etat. These last few may be possible, but unlikely.

Not one to engage in tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, I must say the following one is so Machiavellian and sinister that I tend to give it some credibility.

Let's stipulate on the outset that HRC is seriously, seriously ill. There's ample evidence of this.  But exactly how ill is she?  There's a compelling 10 minute video by a medical professor showing some of HRC's leaked medical records from 2015 which indicate that she has a condition called Subcortical Vascular Dementia.   This condition is progressive - meaning it gets worse and worse over time - and usually results in patients living just 3 to 5 years after diagnosis. If this is her diagnosis, she's got maybe 18 months to live.  Or given the rate of decline in her health over just the past few weeks, maybe much, much less.

In It Together

So why would she run for president?  And why would her party support such a decisions?  These are key questions.

Two reasons come immediately to mind.  First, HRC's ambitions have always to be the first female president.  That's to be her legacy, even if it results in a death in office.  With literally her dying breath she wants that distinction.  And if elected, and if on the day of her inauguration she passes away or becomes certifiably incapacitated, there will be a constitutional crisis as to who will be president. And that decision - not withstanding any constitutional provisions to the contrary for such an occurrence - may very well and most probably fall to the Kenyan.  It's a mutually advantageous arrangement, then, isn't it?  A win-win.  A legacy for one, extended power for the other.  The ruling party continues on.  Can't do it, you say?

Well, that's the second reason.

From Russia With Love

Russia.  The country we love to hate.  Ever since Stalin's Soviet Union in 1945, whom General George Patton wanted to take out after his Third Army rolled into Berlin ending the European war, to Khrushchev's ballistic missiles based in Cuba and aimed at Florida in the 1960s (as a young boy growing up in Clearwater in those days, it was a very real and constant threat, which today is forgotten as either ancient or obscure history), to James Bond's arch nemesis, to today's news that Russia is hacking into the United States intelligence service, the Russian Bear seems to have a voracious appetite, and is seen as an enemy to most Americans living today.  Even today Russia continues to flex its military muscle (images here) during war exercises in Crimea.

That Russia is a threat is undeniable.  Three years ago Edward Snowden pulled back the curtain to let Americans see how vulnerable our intelligence services are.  He described the leak last month of NSA espionage tools, potentially by Russia as an “implicit threat” to the US government. Efforts by hackers called the Shadow Brokers to auction off NSA computer code used to break into foreign networks were an attempt to show Washington how vulnerable it was, he added.   We hack them, they hack us, we all hack China and everybody else.   Spy versus spy in a digital world. 

But wait.

There's a worse threat to the Western world, and to the United States especially, and that threat is Islam.  Islam isn't a country; it's not a race; it's not a tribe; it's not even an idea.  It's a death cult that has been in existence for 1,400 years.  Neither its goals nor its methods have changed in all that time.  Its mandate is simple:  To the world, convert or die.  Even with Soviet Union President  Khrushchev's famous "we will bury you!" threat, in this writer's view, is laughable compared to the insidious real threat of Islam.

Here's why.

Russia is a nation.  The United States is a nation.  Both have been preparing and training for war with other nation states for millennia.  We both know how to fight in a nation state against nation state conflict.  But with Islam both countries face a two pronged attack as Islam wages both an asymmetrical and psychological war against Christian nations. As to psychology they move into a new region - a community, a county, a state, a nation -  and by slowly pretending to assimilate, or simply through overwhelming numbers, known to DHS as "settlement jihad", they seek to become a majority.  When that happens, they take over that once free society, and enact sharia law.  As to the physical war, they are violent, to be sure, as their creed demands, and attack at every opportunity.  In fact, there have been over 29,000 worldwide deaths involved from over 11,000 attacks since September 11, 2001.  Here's just a partial list.

And make no mistake, and say what you will about Vladimir Putin, but understand that he has brought Russia back into the Christian fold.  The Soviets were atheists, true, but not so were the Russian people.  Putin has embraced the Orthodox Christian Church, and even more importantly, has prevented Muslims from entering the country.  The United States in contrast, does all it can under the Kenyan's administration to admit as many Muslim savages as he possibly can, while denigrating Christianity.  I have personal contact with several of these sleeper agents, and I can state unequivocally that we're in for a major surprise one day when these peaceful moderate Muslims rise up and begin killing us.  That will be after they are elected to local office by those naive souls who just can't seem to see the forest for the trees.  And when once in political power they will begin to ever so slowly change the American way of life.  Just note London's schizophrenic psyche after electing a Muslin mayor, for a perfect example of insane Islamic influence. 

So if Russia is a threat - and it is -  it's no greater a threat than Zika, or tuberculosis or even leprosy.  These threats and many others - including human threats like Hispanic gangs and Muslim sleepers -  have been introduced into the United States by the Kenyan's hateful arrogance and the catastrophic impact on our culture and way of life have yet to be fully felt.  But that's not so in Putin's administration.

So instead of fighting Russia on all fronts, a far better plan to deal with the global threat of Islam is to join with Russia - perhaps even take some notes from Putin's policies regarding same - and engage, defeat and completely annihilate Islam from the face of the Earth.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all.  And Islam is the enemy of all mankind.  It cannot be appeased.  It cannot be contained.  It must be destroyed.

Don't doubt me on this.

Censorship In The Free Market

It seems that every day there's a new revelation that social media sites are anti-conservative, and enact usage policies that are downright blatant censorship.  No kidding.  First Facebook was busted for its anti-conservative bias in its trending news feeds.  Then Twitter was exposed censoring content from members it didn't like.  And now it's YouTube's turn to take the hit. The Google-owned platform recently released new “advertiser friendly” guidelines that stipulated how discussion of “controversial or sensitive subjects and events” would be punished by the user being unable to collect advertising money on such videos. Well.  That's not entirely censorship as you can still post rants and raves.  It's just the new policies won't allow advertisers to pay you for them.  

So what's all the flap about?  There are so many outlets on the Internet for free expression, just find one and use it.  Disqus enables a user to comment on news sites and elsewhere, for instance.  Your voice will be heard.  Ironically, conservatives are the first to hold free enterprise sacrosanct, argue that private companies exist to make a profit, and companies can enact policies as they see fit.  But they tend to become a little less idealistic when censorship and free enterprise intersect. If I ran a global for-profit conservative social media outlet with billions of followers, I probably wouldn't want the likes of the Kenyan or Michael Moore or Hillary or Lena Dunham or anyone writing for the New York Times on my system either.  And guess what?  As a private company, I'd have the perfect right to ban them, or make it difficult  from them to spread their Alinsky-ite nonsensical garbage to my kindred followers.  Wouldn't I? 

So Facebook, Twitter and YouTubers, go set up your own conservative social media system and promote it. Or better yet, use Blogger or Wordpress to create your own blog and sell subscriptions to your writings.  Monopolies exist to be bested after all.  For years, everyone thought General Motors would be king of the road forever, but then these Japanese came over and basically ate GM's lunch.  They did it faster, better and cheaper.  And people bought their cars in record numbers.  Same thing could happen to Google.  They bigger they are, the harder they fall.  Same with Facebook; it become so cumbersome and invasive I quit using it several years ago. 

So when conservatives complain about censorship - and I hate censorship, too, don't get me wrong - I'd remind them of their core principals.  Free speech, yes, of course.  But free markets as well.    If liberal social media companies' trite biases and policies bother you, don't buy stock in those companies, and cancel your subscriptions to them.  It's their right to present their product, and it's your right as a consumer to not buy it.

So quit bitching and go build your own platform, like a true self reliant American.  Take on the giants, kick their ass, and create some jobs and a boatload of money in the process.