U.S. Presidential Election is completely Fake

[Kindred]

(IMO) An excellent analysis of the current circus that the US presidential election has become. Who COULD vote for these 'lesser of two evils'... But, perhaps something Else will happen before then...

From Start to Finish Entire U.S. Presidential Election is Fake:

"The US presidential election just keeps getting faker the more it goes on. Yes, it’s bread and circus time again in America, but this time around the rulers are putting on an entertainment show which has lost its ability to convince and persuade. It’s just too damn fake. We know the US and many other Western “democracies” are rigged one-party states where all the major candidates are controlled, bribed and/or blackmailed. We know that US presidents are selected, not elected. In the 2016 US presidential election, we’ve witnessed all sorts of fakery right from the start."

We know Hillary is beginning to have some serious health problems...

Hillary’s Fake Health and Fake Transparency

The fakery continued after Clinton’s nomination (coronation) as queen at the DNC. Ever since the topic of Hillary’s health has come to light, Hillary has been in damage control mode, trying to convince a skeptical public she is well enough for the office of president, despite her coughing fits, bouts of dizziness and confusion, struggling to walk up stairs, tripping and falling, bouts of inappropriate laughter, wild crossed-eyed looks and her public seizures (see The Real Hillary Clinton for more info).

As far as Trump is concerned:

Trump’s Connections to the Shadow Rulers

Although this article has so far highlighted the fraud surrounding Hillary, the point here is not to support Trump. The Donald himself has a myriad of connections and associations with NWO agents such as the head of the Rockefeller CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Tommy Haas. Trump is also close to Paypal founder, millionaire and transhumanist Peter Thiel, CIA asset and Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, as well as Louis Lesser partner of CIA Asset Meyer Lansky (who was involved the JFK assassination). To what degree Trump is influenced or controlled by these men is an open question, however we know enough to say that he has tyrannical tendencies, is an ardent Zionist and a possible or probable pedophile – hardly the choice you want to be given in a free and open society.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/09/06/start-finish-entire-u-s-presidential-election-fake/

This will prove to be an 'Interesting' election cycle, to be certain.

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Jayren]

More truth bombs


(IMO) An excellent analysis of the current circus that the US presidential election has become. Who COULD vote for these 'lesser of two evils'... But, perhaps something Else will happen before then...

From Start to Finish Entire U.S. Presidential Election is Fake:

"The US presidential election just keeps getting faker the more it goes on. Yes, it’s bread and circus time again in America, but this time around the rulers are putting on an entertainment show which has lost its ability to convince and persuade. It’s just too damn fake. We know the US and many other Western “democracies” are rigged one-party states where all the major candidates are controlled, bribed and/or blackmailed. We know that US presidents are selected, not elected. In the 2016 US presidential election, we’ve witnessed all sorts of fakery right from the start."

We know Hillary is beginning to have some serious health problems...

Hillary’s Fake Health and Fake Transparency

The fakery continued after Clinton’s nomination (coronation) as queen at the DNC. Ever since the topic of Hillary’s health has come to light, Hillary has been in damage control mode, trying to convince a skeptical public she is well enough for the office of president, despite her coughing fits, bouts of dizziness and confusion, struggling to walk up stairs, tripping and falling, bouts of inappropriate laughter, wild crossed-eyed looks and her public seizures (see The Real Hillary Clinton for more info).

As far as Trump is concerned:

Trump’s Connections to the Shadow Rulers

Although this article has so far highlighted the fraud surrounding Hillary, the point here is not to support Trump. The Donald himself has a myriad of connections and associations with NWO agents such as the head of the Rockefeller CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Tommy Haas. Trump is also close to Paypal founder, millionaire and transhumanist Peter Thiel, CIA asset and Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, as well as Louis Lesser partner of CIA Asset Meyer Lansky (who was involved the JFK assassination). To what degree Trump is influenced or controlled by these men is an open question, however we know enough to say that he has tyrannical tendencies, is an ardent Zionist and a possible or probable pedophile – hardly the choice you want to be given in a free and open society.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/09/06/start-finish-entire-u-s-presidential-election-fake/

This will prove to be an 'Interesting' election cycle, to be certain.

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Atlas]

I agree with OP. Ask Donald Trump if he'd use nukes, his answer: "maybe..." http://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/6/60/Icon_facepalm.gif
VSnVb4i_ZZ4
Hillary Clinton: "Obliterate them" http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn84/gempix/facepalm-1.gif
7yWsbWs8Kpg

[Michael Moewes]

Off course it is. And it always was.
This form of election is not democratic at all.
The only democratic way is to vote directly for your favourite candidate.
As in this elections there is no favourite candidate in my opinion, the voting rate must be by 0%.
In this case the Military takes over and has to put every politician into custody.
Might be big fun to see them finally where they all belong, behind bars.

[Cardillac]

all I can say is:

"it's not who votes that counts but who counts the votes"

[conk]

... Who COULD vote for these 'lesser of two evils'... My granny put a little spin on that old adage. She'd say, "we have to chose between the lesser of two weasels". ;)

[jimrich]

(IMO)

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/09/06/start-finish-entire-u-s-presidential-election-fake/

This will prove to be an 'Interesting' election cycle, to be certain.

In Unity, Peace and Love
Of course it's a fake and has been for many, many years. It doesn't matter who get the office or from what party because the Rulers run the main events (money, power, wars, corruption, drugs, oil, assassinations, slavery) as they have for millennia.
The Elite Rulers have run things for many centuries from their carefully hidden yet POWERFUL & private nests. Google: David Icke to learn all about the Elite Rulers.

The public doesn't and perhaps never will know anything about them but, even if we did, what would we do? How are YOU dealing with the Rulers?
I am just living the best life I can and let the rest of the universe go its own way. :dog:

[voltaire237]

all elections are fake.
the people behind the politicians are the ones pulling the strings. Like in the BBC satire 'Yes, Minister'

[voltaire237]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp1q2kv8zQw

[onawah]

Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440380/obama-email-alias-clinton-why-fbi-didnt-prosecute-hillary?utm_source=nr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=mccarthy?utm_campaign%3Dobama-email
P2wLeNit_5c

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY September 26, 2016 4:00 AM
Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well. ‘How is this not classified?” So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach. Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome.
“How is this not classified?”
She recovered quickly enough, though.
The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.” Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Thanks to Friday’s FBI document dump — 189 more pages of reports from the Bureau’s year-long foray (“investigation” would not be the right word) into the Clinton e-mail scandal — we now know for certain what I predicted some eight months ago here at NRO: Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest.
As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information. To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale.
Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton — although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread. Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton.
It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence. Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. Indeed, imagine what would have happened had Clinton been indicted. The White House would have attempted to maintain the secrecy of the Obama-Clinton e-mails (under Obama’s invocation of a bogus “presidential communications” privilege), but Clinton’s defense lawyers would have demanded the disclosure of the e-mails in order to show that Obama had engaged in the same misconduct, yet only she, not he, was being prosecuted. And as most experienced criminal-law lawyers understand (especially if they’ve read a little Supreme Court case known as United States v. Nixon), it is an argument that Clinton’s lawyers would have won.
In fact, in any other case — i.e., in a case that involved any other unindicted co-conspirator — it would be the Justice Department itself introducing the Obama-Clinton e-mails into evidence. As noted above, the FBI told Huma Abedin that the name she did not recognize in the e-mail with Clinton was an Obama alias. For the agents to do this ran afoul of investigative protocols. The point of an FBI interview is for the interviewee to provide information to the investigators, not the other way around. If agents give information to potential witnesses, the government gets accused of trumping up the case. But of course, that’s only a problem if there is actually going to be a case.
In this instance, it was never going to happen. The president’s involvement guaranteed that . . . so why worry about letting Abedin in on the president’s involvement? Abedin was startled by this revelation. No wonder: People in her lofty position know that direct presidential communications with high-ranking officials who have national-security and foreign-policy responsibilities are presumptively classified.
To convey this, and thus convey the legal significance of Obama’s involvement, I can’t much improve on what I told you back in February. When the Obama Justice Department prosecuted retired general David Petraeus, the former CIA director, for mishandling classified information, government attorneys emphasized that this top-secret intelligence included notes of Petraeus’s “discussions with the president of the United States of America.” Petraeus pled guilty because he knew the case against him was a slam-dunk. He grasped that trying to defend himself by sputtering, Clinton-style, that “the notes were not marked classified” would not pass the laugh test.
As I elaborated in the February column, when you’re a national-security official engaging in and making a written record of policy and strategy conversations with the president, the lack of classified markings on the documents you’ve created [does] not alter the obvious fact that the information they contain [is] classified — a fact well known to any high government official who routinely handles national-defense secrets, let alone one who directly advises the president.
Moreover, as is the case with Clinton’s e-mails, much of the information in Petraeus’s journals was “born classified” under the terms of President Obama’s own executive order — EO 13526. As I’ve previously noted, in section 1.1(d) of that order, Obama issued this directive: “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” In addition, the order goes on (in section 1.4) to describe other categories of information that officials should deem classified based on the damage to national security that disclosure could cause. Included among these categories: foreign relations, foreign activities of the United States, military plans, and intelligence activities.
Abedin knew, as the FBI agents who were interviewing her surely knew, that at least some of Obama’s pseudonymous exchanges with Clinton had to have crossed into these categories. They were born classified. As I said in February, this fact would profoundly embarrass Obama if the e-mails were publicly disclosed. Hundreds of times, despite Clinton’s indignant insistence that she never sent or received classified information, the State Department has had to concede that her e-mails must be redacted or withheld from public disclosure because they contain information that is patently classified. But this is not a concession the administration is willing to make regarding Obama’s e-mails.
That is why, as I argued in February, Obama is trying to get away with the vaporous claim that presidential communications must be kept confidential. He does not want to say “executive privilege” because that sounds too much like Nixon. More important, the only other alternative is to designate the e-mails as classified. That would be tantamount to an admission that Obama engaged in the same violation of law as Clinton. Again, this is why the prosecution of Mrs. Clinton never had a chance of happening. It also explains why, in his public statements about the matter, Obama insisted that Clinton’s e-mailing of classified information did not harm national security.
It is why Obama, in stark contrast to his aforementioned executive order, made public statements pooh-poohing the fact that federal law forbids the mishandling of any intelligence secret. (“There’s classified, and then there’s classified,” he said, so cavalierly.) He had to take this position because he had himself effectively endorsed the practice of high-level communications through non-secure channels. This is also why the Justice Department and the FBI effectively rewrote the relevant criminal statute in order to avoid applying it to Clinton. In his public statements about Clinton, Obama has stressed that she is an exemplary public servant who would never intentionally harm the United States. In rationalizing their decision not to indict Clinton, Justice Department officials (in leaks to the Washington Post) and the FBI director (in his press conference and congressional testimony) similarly stressed the lack of proof that she intended to harm the United States.
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, however, the operative criminal statute does not call for proof of intent to harm the United States. It merely requires proof of gross negligence. This is entirely lawful and appropriate, since we’re talking about a law that can apply only to government officials who have a special duty to preserve secrecy and who have been schooled in the proper handling of classified information. Yet the Justice Department frivolously suggested that applying the law exactly the way it is written — something the Justice Department routinely tells judges they must do — would, in Clinton’s case, potentially raise constitutional problems.
Alas, the Justice Department and the FBI have to take that indefensible position here. Otherwise, Clinton would not be the only one in legal jeopardy. I will end with what I said eight months ago:
To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information. That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

[onawah]

Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.
The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon
https://www.bostonglobe.com/…/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBf…/story.html…
This is from 2014, but it still holds true.
By Jordan Michael Smith OCTOBER 19, 2014


THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United States could add more troops, or the United States could add a lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops. Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.
How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.
IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?
GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested that there are two sets of institutions. There are the “dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he suggested that there was in reality a second set of institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British cabinet.
IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?
GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.
IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?
GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision....Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.
The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot.”
IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?
GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.
IDEAS: Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million lives?
GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.
IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.
GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot explained about the British population, that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.
IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?
GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.
Jordan Michael Smith is a contributing writer at Salon and The Christian Science Monitor.