Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Statistical Analysis Reveals Hillary Stole Primary


Where there was a voting paper trail, Bernie won.  The deviations from exit polls in states without a voting paper trail could not have happened by chance and favored Hillary.

According to these studies, it appears the electronic votes were hacked to make Hillary win.  The alternative to this hypothesis would be that there is some other factor which I may have failed to imagine.


I once met the vote counting czar in Bexar county, who attended a discussion party I hosted regarding voting machines.  This was in the aftermath of the 2000 election, where vote counting had been a major concern.  Some time earlier the County had decided to buy and deploy new electronic voting machines.

He saw nothing wrong with electronic voting machines and no good reason for a paper trail.  All of the others at the party were very concerned about the hackability of electronic voting machines and thought there should always be a paper trail, if not fully hand counted paper ballots.

Based on some off topic comments he made wrt Israel and the Palestinians, it would be fair to guess that he was a Zionist.  In my reckoning, his views did not seem fair to the Palestinians.

In order to rig an election run county by county, one would need people acting in secret and trusting one another over a wide geographical area.  Such people would need a strong shared interest which they would consider more important than honesty and fairness to other groups.  They would need to be part of a society, perhaps partly public, in which they are bound to others.  Such people cannot be purchased, anyone merely purchased could later be a turncoat.

The Bernie Sanders delegates at the Democratic Party Platform meeting tried to get a plank into the Democratic Platform that called for an end to the occupation and illegal settlements in Palestine.  It was rejected by all of the DNC and Hillary Clinton representatives.

Bernie Sanders himself is Jewish, and he strongly supports the existence of the State of Israel.  But since he also supports fairness to the Palestinians, it would be unfair to characterize him as a Zionist--which is a derogatory term from the standpoint of liberal minded people who believe in universal rights and are opposed to religious discrimination of any kind.  (There used to be a middle ground term "liberal Zionist" but that has only served to describe occasionally apologetic Zionists.)

Noam Chomsky is a Jew who is very critical of Israeli policies, though he considers himself a friend of Israel and a person who supports the existence of an Israel (side by side with Palestine on the internationally recognized borders, as he says) but wants to see it become an international law abiding state (which, btw, it is not).  Meanwhile there are many Jews who are critical of the very idea of a one-religion-supremacist state such as Israel, they believe there should be one state for both Jews and non-Jews in all of Israel and Palestine, and in which all have equal rights, including rights related to immigration, so there would be an axiomatic right-of-return for all displaced Palestinians and their successors.  That is the so-called "One State" solution advocated by many supporters of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement for Palestine, and supporters of the "One State" solution sometimes call themselves Anti-Zionists.  Anti-Zionism is the morally superior view based on the idea of equality of all people and no discrimination based on religion.

The Sanders delegation was also unable to remove language strongly critical of the B.D.S. movement from the Democratic Platform, blocked by the Clinton and DNC delegations.  Unfortunately we can't see exactly what this language is--because the Democratic National Committee does not make the draft Platform public.  Nevertheless, they are claiming it represents the most progressive Democratic Party Platform in history.

Noam Chomsky does not believe the uniquely pro-Israel policies of the USA stem from some kind of Zionist conspiracy.  (BTW, one need not at all be a Jew to be Zionists, there are many Christian Zionists, such as Hillary Clinton herself.)  He argues it is simply a long standanding part of the internal rules of the deep imperial state.  Just after the 1967 war, Israeli forces were seen as being so effective in controlling other states in the Middle East, the US war establishment decided to buy into it.  Israel became, and still is, a key part of the US empire.  And that, rather than the feelings of a small number of Jewish voters, explains why the US is uniquely pro-Israel (for example, continually vetoing US Security Council resolutions that would force Israel to live up to international laws, supplying military assistance, and massive military aid).

A view such as "A Jewish secret society is running the world" is often characterized as being not just a conspiracy theory, but a specifically anti-semetic conspiracy theory, of the kind that led to the rise a Naziism in Germany.

However, if you use the word Zionist, since that does not uniquely apply to Jews, I would say it is not necessarily anti-semitic, to a well informed person who understands what I've said above.

I provide the weakest possible anecdotal connection for an actual Zionist conspiracy above.  However, many many people do believe there is a Zionist conspiracy--and the extreme preference for Israel results not from just the deep imperial state that Chomsky opines, nor honest politics, though the "contributions" might go a long way toward explaining it), nor the relatively small proportion of Jews strongly identifying with Israel.  I think it's possible that a strong US preference for Israel could result from the combination of large financial campaign contributions from the likes of Sheldon Adelson, combined with the actions of a well organized minority.  And that kind of anti-democracy would best be limited by keeping private money out of politics.

However if actual vote stealing *is* being done, there would have to be a kind of secret organization, and it would best be held together with a strongly shared interest not unlike Zionism.

A friend of mine who served 20 years in the Air Force starting in the 1970's, did not feel there was any preference for Israel in the military or state apparatus as such, as far as he could tell.  In fact, he sensed a certain degree of loathing, such as over the US ship bombed by Israel in the 1960's.  His sense was that all the preference for Israel came from politicians, appeasing voters and milking donors.  I have argued that he might not have any awareness of feelings at the highest levels.  But his argument turns away from the deep state being the source of the preference.

If indeed the preference ends with politicians, and perhaps their direct appointments, this would suggest it's all in the voter appeal and money raising.  We assume politicians are controlled in those ways, in one way essentially corrupt and in another not as much.  If preferring Israel didn't pay in one way or the other or both, it wouldn't happen.

Of course there are also the commercial interests such as military hardware makers, who have lots of money.  For the task force, that could be provided by: the mob, the CIA, the FBI, lot's of groups are geographically distributed and may have authorized and unauthorized agendas--though it's hard to necessarily imagine any aligning with Zionism as well as, well, Zionists.

Regardless of who did it, or even if it's happening--which may be impossible to prove, a big help to democracy would be voting apparatus with a paper trail.  Some states do that.  There isn't anything anti-semitic about that.

Hillary Clinton's national political career is widely believed to have started with a commencement speech she gave at Wellesley College in 1970.   From that moment onward, she climbed the ladder very quickly, becoming one of the youngest lawyers examining the Watergate Tapes, for example, including the super top secret "Tape of Tapes" which some believe may give information regarding the JFK assassination.  But not long after that she left Washington DC and moved to Arkansas with the man she already believed would be President.  Bill Clinton also had a strangely meteoric rise, starting with his Rhodes Scholarship, which he apparently never completed, instead spending time organizing anti-war protests and going on a long tour of Europe and Russia with no known source of income.  I have read and do strongly believe that both Bill and Hillary were CIA recruits, recruited right out of college.  They were recruited to infiltrate the peace movement and report back about radicals.  Both became successful in their initial anti-establishment careers almost instantly, as if someone were pulling strings.  Neither had principled reasons for being anti-establishment, Bill for example was only apparently concerned about personally evading the draft, not in confronting the injustice the war actually represented, as outlined by Martin Luther King.  Then they as quickly as they rose in the "anti-establishment" they quickly became successful in their fully establishment careers, such as Hillary becoming being the youngest lawyer on the Watergate Commission, or Bill becoming the Attorney General of Arkansas, suggesting even more strings being pulled.   Victor Thorn has written a book on Hillary which fills in the CIA apparent details of both Clinton's lives(I mostly believe the chapter about how and why the Clintons were recruited to the CIA, I do not necessarily believe anything else in this volume and I believe Thorn's other volumes even less.  The thing is...the CIA won't be telling us whether or not the Clintons were involved with them, so we will never know for sure, but the shoe fits and explains the otherwise inexplicable.  In other parts of this and other similar books, there's nothing essential in the flow of the Clinton's lives to explain repeated rape or murder...there's no essential fit or not.  It's more reasonable to believe too much of this would have sunk the Clinton boat long ago, unless their true agency had a smaller recruitment base than the CIA and had no alternative to the Clintons.  And people harmed by the Clintons WOULD be telling us, so we've already heard these stories, some have already been debunked, some may be true, and there are many who could fabricate stories for various reasons.  By the way, this book actually seems like a composite which itself was written by different authors.  The person writing the CIA section has more of a left view than not and makes it clear the Clinton's were not and never could have been leftists, they were spies snitching on leftist groups, and they've been spoilers for the left ever since, so the shoe really does fit.  They were right Republicans recruited into the Nixon-era CIA.  Nixon's Cheney was Henry Kissinger, who would have been ultimately responsible for them.  No wonder Hillary is still a Kissinger fan today, it was during his rule that she was brought on, possibly personally selected by him.)

Now the selection of people for such intelligence work would be based on specific talents.  One of the very most important talents for any secret agent or operative is lying, and the Clintons both do that effortlessly.  It's easy to see that they could have been the best in their recruitment class.

It is said in Thorn's book that you cannot find the words of the speech Hillary actually gave at Wellesley.  It is said it did not follow the bland speech she had actually written.  It was a specific attack on the black Republican Senator, Edward Brooke, who had just finished giving his commencement address.  An amazing array of top government officials was present that day, but news recordings and even notes were forcibly destroyed.

I notice that the period 1967-1970 was also the time frame in which US policy shifted towards Israel, when the USA became the leading defender of Israel.   Chomsky ascribes this to self-interest in the deep imperial state.

FWIW, Edward Brooke took a tour of Israel and said nice things about it some time after his presence hearing Hillary's speech.  Was he sent on this tour for some kind of corrective reasons, to correct his "misunderstanding" of what Israel is all about?

No comments:

Post a Comment