133 Thoughts on “US presidential election scandals

  1. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2016 at 1:57 pm said:

    >”Andy’s media / politics / voting conspiracy?”

    ‘Rigged Elections Are An American Tradition’

  2. O/T here is a link to the Project Veritas I mentioned upthread

    (i.e the “right wing conspiracy being peddled by morons and half wits”, although CNN (Clinton News Network) did cover it briefly)

  3. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2016 at 4:34 pm said:


    >”Project Veritas……..(i.e the “right wing conspiracy being peddled by morons and half wits”, although CNN (Clinton News Network) did cover it briefly)”

    Aljazeera’s ‘Listening Post’ covered it too. People paying attention know what is going on but there’s not enough public awareness to change anything I don’t think. How many out there other than the vitally interested are wading though the leaks?

    Even Democrat voters following something like Project Veritas probably aren’t going to be turned off by it (maybe I’m wrong). Dem voters had already gone to Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein. Forced back to Hillary by DNC skullduggery. What choice do they have?

    BTW, this from Project Veritas is just “conspiracy ideation” apparently:

    “The second [Project Veritas] video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years”

    As upthread, ‘Rigged Elections Are An American Tradition’.

    Your link also mentions DNC’s Robert Creamer who I highlighted previous thread.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2016 at 6:49 pm said:

    Latest News – Project Veritas

    James O’Keefe Files FEC [Federal Elections Commission.] Complaint Against Clinton Campaign and DNC – 10/19/2016

    YouTube’s Threat to Remove Our Latest Video [and Twitter blocking account] -10/13/2016

    James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) | Twitter

    2h2 hours ago James O’Keefe Retweeted Brian Stelter

    Brian, our YouTube videos have 10 million views in the last 7 days. 54 million twitter impressions.https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/790757281843519489

    James O’Keefe added,
    Brian Stelter @brianstelter
    @gatewaypundit @JamesOKeefeIII @TomiLahren Jim, my program had 1.35 million TV viewers last week. http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/10/18/cnn-reliable-sources-number-one-fox-news-ratings/


  5. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2016 at 7:02 pm said:

    >”Brian Stelter”

    In case anyone is wondering………

    ‘CNN’s Reliable Sources #1 Among Adults 25-54 for Third Straight Week’

    CNN’s Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter was the No. 1 media program beating Fox News’ Media Buzz with Howard Kurtz in the key demographic adults 25-54 now for the third straight week. On Sunday, October 16, CNN had 423k, a +45% advantage over Fox News’ 291k. This is the CNN program’s best delivery in the demo 25-54 since launch (November 2013).


    # # #

    As previous, Project Veritas videos beat that hands down. The more YouTube and Twitter want to shut it down the more people want to know about it.

    Streisand effect
    The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.[1]

  6. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2016 at 7:53 pm said:

    CBS Discovers Project Veritas Videos; ABC, NBC Still Censoring – October 20 2016

    Clinton Promptly Ends Press Conference When Asked About Project Veritas Videos – Oct 21, 2016

    Hillary Clinton appeared to get very uncomfortable when asked by reporters about the recently released Project Veritas videos showing DNC operatives engaging in voter fraud and inciting violence at Donald Trump rallies.

    “You know, I know nothing about this,” she told reporters on her campaign plane. “I can’t deal with every one of his conspiracy theories, but I hope you all have something to eat and something to drink on the way back to New York! Thank you.”


    # # #

    Plausible deniability

  7. Richard C (NZ) on October 25, 2016 at 9:02 pm said:

    >”ABC, NBC Still Censoring ”

    ABC and NBC’s morning and evening newscasts have yet to cover the controversy. Instead, NBC’s Today on 20 October 2016 devoted 33 seconds to a North Korean smoking chimpanzee. The same morning, ABC’s GMA set aside over a minute to possible new music from John Mayer.


    We have to keep in mind that there are plenty of voters in the American electorate for whom the above would be news priority.

    I’m an NFL fan but not of any particular team although some more than others, I watch players both on and off field. Examples: Seattle Sea Hawks Avril who is a strip-sack specialist (simultaneous QB sack and ball strip); Pittsburg Steeler Villanauva who served as an Army Ranger and decorated with a Bronze Star for valor as a rifle platoon leader for moving forward under enemy fire to pull his wounded soldiers from an isolated position (amazing story), or Kansas City Chiefs Laurent Duvernay-Tardif who is working towards his medical degree (he’s already delivered babies) and only trains once a week with the team because he works hospital shifts, also done concussion study.

    Villanauva is 6′ 9″, 320 lbs. In college a 290 lb tackle, wide receiver in the Army, now he’s back at offensive tackle in the NFL. Crusty old commentators have never heard of anyone else doing that. Steelers coach Mike Tomlin thinks Villanauva could run for President (so could Tomlin).

    On the other hand…….

    Rams player thinks dinosaurs are a hoax but mermaids are real

  8. Richard C (NZ) on October 26, 2016 at 9:59 am said:

    ‘Hungarian and Polish Leaders Denounce “Sovietization” by EU’ – 25 October 2016

    In 1956, Hungarians rose up against the Soviet domination of the country, under the leadership of Imre Nagy. Nagy had been a leader of the Communist Party in Hungary, but he announced the withdrawal of Hungary from the Warsaw Pact [the alliance of the Soviet Union with other communist-controlled nations in eastern Europe], and also called for a multi-party political system. When he sought support from the United States and the United Kingdom to recognize Hungary’s neutral status, the Soviet Union invaded the country, crushing street protesters with tanks, and arresting Nagy. He was eventually hanged for treason.

    Orbán rose to national prominence in Hungary with his public speech in the late 1980s at the reburial of Nagy, in which he demanded that the Soviets get out of Hungary. This was followed by his election to the National Assembly in 1990, where he eventually emerged as a leader of the Fidesz Party until 1994. Orbán shifted the party’s position away from its internationalist or integrationist platform to a center-right national conservative platform, calling for both national sovereignty and the protection of national borders.


    Politico said Orbán’s political philosophy “echoes the resentments of what were once the peasant and working classes.” He pushes for an “uncompromising defense of national sovereignty and a transparent distrust of Europe’s ruling establishments.”

    Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton specifically criticized [Hungarian Prime Minister] Orbán and his political views.

    With the recent national referendum in Britain to cut ties with the European Union, combined with rumblings of discontent in France, Hungary, and Poland, along with growing opposition to Merkel in Germany, the European establishment is understandably growing increasingly worried.

    It is not known if Donald Trump will defeat Hillary Clinton on November 8, but his candidacy and the opposition to European internationalists by political leaders such as Viktor Orbán is an indication that the globalist agenda is being challenged like never before.


    # # #

    Having got rid of “Sovietization” from Hungary, why accept it back again in EU guise?

  9. Richard C (NZ) on October 26, 2016 at 1:16 pm said:

    >”growing opposition to Merkel in Germany”

    Paying for this:

    Fury in Germany over Syrian Muslim refugee who gets state hand-outs for his FOUR wives and 22 children

  10. Richard C (NZ) on October 26, 2016 at 6:45 pm said:

    Watergate’s Bob Woodward: “Clinton Foundation Is Corrupt, It’s A Scandal”


    No comment: Clinton has ‘nothing to say’ about Wikileaks email revealing $12M quid pro quo with Morocco’s king that an aide said was a ‘mess’ of her own making

    ‘I have nothing to say about Wikileaks, other than I think we should all be concerned about what the Russians are trying to do to our election’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863568/No-comment-Clinton-say-Wikileaks-email-revealing-12M-quid-pro-quo-Morocco-s-king-aide-said-mess-making.html#ixzz4OArOArGy

  11. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2016 at 10:19 am said:

    Inside The Invisible Government: John Pilger On War, Propaganda, Clinton And Trump

    Today, the greatest build-up of American-led forces since World War Two is under way – in the Caucasus and eastern Europe, on the border with Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, where China is the target.

    Keep that in mind when the presidential election circus reaches its finale on November 8th, If the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton’s victims: the women of Syria, the women of Iraq, the women of Libya.


  12. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2016 at 1:34 pm said:

    Obama Admin: Hungary Should Rescue Communist Party Newspaper


    It was not immediately clear why the Obama administration had an interest in saving a radical left-wing propaganda organ reviled by many Hungarians who suffered under communism. The State Department bureaucrat, though, speaking for the administration, claimed it was about ensuring that Hungarians are exposed to a “diversity” of “viewpoints.” Hungarians, of course, were exposed to the savage communist “viewpoint” for decades, having suffered tremendously under a ruthless, murderous Soviet puppet regime that sought to quash all dissent using intimidation, torture, and murder as tools.


    But Obama’s officials, standing with Hungary’s re-branded Communist Party (now dubbed “Socialist”), were clear in expressing their displeasure with the bankruptcy and subsequent shuttering of the old communist mouthpiece in Hungary. “The United States shares the concerns of global press freedom advocates, international organizations, and Hungarian citizens, over the steady decline of media freedom in Hungary,” claimed Obama’s Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner, echoing debunked conspiracy theories instead of offering specifics on which organizations or how media freedom in Hungary was declining.

    “We are following closely the … sudden closure of Hungary’s largest independent newspaper, Nepszabadsag, on October 8,” Toner continued, without explaining that its owner shut it down because it was losing money, or that it was an organ for totalitarian propaganda associated with the ruthless communist regime that enslaved Hungary. “The loss of this paper — regardless of the reason — is a blow to media pluralism in Hungary.”

    Despite the communist-pushed conspiracy theories, the “reason” for closing the paper was that the ownership wanted to shut it down because, like establishment propaganda organs across the West, it was hemorrhaging money. Hungarian authorities properly pointed out that it would be “an infringement of the freedom of the press, if we were to have a say in the decisions of a media owner,” which it said had made a “rational economic decision” to shutter the money-losing newspaper.


    While the Obama State Department worked to ensure that Hungarians still had access to communist propaganda that they did not want, there was no intervention from Washington on behalf on media outlets banned by the UN from its “global warming” conference. Canadian outlet The Rebel was refused credentials for the upcoming UN COP22 “climate” summit in Morocco. When confronted, the UN bureaucrat in charge, Nick Nuttall, argued that the Canadian news organization had views that were not “particularly helpful.” Even radical warmists in government and media were shocked by the UN’s appalling attack on press freedom.

    It gets even worse. Despite calls for government-enforced media “diversity” in Hungary by propping up communist propaganda organs, Obama is not as fond of media diversity in America. Indeed, closer to home, Obama recently lashed out at what he derided as the “wild, wild West” media landscape in America, outraged that “conspiracy theorists” and skeptics of the man-made global-warming theory had a platform to express themselves. He called for some sort of “curating function” to help define reality for Americans, expressing nostalgia for the days when just three establishment propaganda organs dominated the “news” and were “generally” trusted by Americans.


    # # #

    >”  It was not immediately clear why the Obama administration had an interest in saving a radical left-wing propaganda organ”


    And why, given it was a Hungarian.






  13. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2016 at 12:05 pm said:

    Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agents



    Retired CIA Officer Explains Why “Hillary’s Emails Matter”


  14. Headline of the century from the NY Post:


    “Dikileaks: The Stroking Gun” complete with a picture of Anthony Weiner taking a “selfie” just out of the shower.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2016 at 7:40 am said:

    Clinton’s State Department: A RICO Enterprise

    Mrs. Clinton appears to have converted the office of secretary of state into a racketeering enterprise. This would be a violation of the RICO law — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971 (codified in the U.S. penal code at sections 1961 et seq.).


  16. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2016 at 7:44 am said:

    “The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.” – New York Post

    And the pattern continues. In 2014 only 5.7% of the budget went to charitable grants.You get the idea.


  17. On the subject of “deniability” I really do feel that the US elections have entered the Twilight Zone

    The lack of coverage of the government corruption by the media is astounding.

  18. Speaking of droning, I would like to extend a warm appreciation for Dennis Horne, who has taken time out from his busy schedule of being respected by “thousands” of people (according to him) to remind us that we are all halfwits, morons, illiterates, cretins and generally evil people


    I do feel genuinely privileged to be acknowledged by such greatness.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 8:52 am said:


    >”On the subject of “deniability” I really do feel that the US elections have entered the Twilight Zone. The lack of coverage of the government corruption by the media is astounding.”


    A few have broken ranks though. Even some dissent at CNN. But internet commentators are forcing their hand I think. I’m reminded of Watergate which was before the internet era. That was very different. JoNova has a post on this:

    It’s the Corruption Stupid. The only policy that matters…


    There is not just one but five separate investigations of the inner Clintonworld clan: – Daily Mail

    Top 7 Charges Hillary Clinton Could Face While President, by John Hayward — Breitbart.

    The top 100 most damaging wikileaks





  20. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 8:54 am said:

    Also in the JoNova post:

    YouTube Censors Video on … Left-Wing Censorship

  21. Voters are waiting two hours for the paper ballot when there is a queue of 3 people for the electronic voting machine.

    Clearly, some US voters are onto the game, despite the MSM’s lame attempts to cover up the fraud and corruption

  22. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 10:48 am said:

    I’m waiting for something to break (maybe never) on DOJ head Loretta Lynch and FBI head Comey versus the sworn FBI rank and file. I’m not buying Scott Adam’s

  23. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 11:07 am said:

    Comment disappeared before I could finish, here’s the rest: I’m not buying Scott Adams’ ‘Persuasion Filter’:


    ‘James Comey – As seen through the Persuasion Filter’ – Scott Adams

    “Comey took two bullets to do it.”



    I don’t think so. Lynch and Comey had no choice, The sworn FBI agents would have gone public (maybe via Wikileaks or even directly to the media) if Comey had not done so. They took weeks to inform Comey of Weiner’s emails so they had plenty of time to digest what they had (they just didn’t have a warrant). Some of those emails could be what Hilary’s Lawyers and Techs scrubbed with BleachBit.


    BTW, classic Podesta propaganda:


    John Podesta on Twitter: Donald Trump has a secret email server set up to communicate privately with the Russian Alfa Bank.





    FBI Finds No Links Between Trump And Russia, Probing Manafort Instead



    Trump fired campaign manager Manafort.

  24. Lynch is pleading the fifth (amendment, i.e so she can’t indict herself)


    What is wrong with this picture?

  25. Trump want to be friends with Russia. Hillary wants to start a war. Why is Trump the baddie in this situation?

  26. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 11:22 am said:

    Hillary is Finished, This Exploding Google Trend Proves It: “Change Early Vote”



    Podesta To Mills: “We Are Going To Have To Dump All Those Emails”



    New Podesta Email Reveals More Clinton Campaign Collusion With CNN



    Wikileaks Reveals Google’s “Strategic Plan” To Help Democrats Win The Election, Track Voters



  27. Michelle Obama has just deleted three years of Tweets. Oh what a twisted web

  28. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 12:31 pm said:

    Google Schmidt’s “Strategic Plan” :

    The Rules

    Its important that all the player in the campaign work at cost and there be no special interests in the financing structure. This means that all vendors work at cost and there is a separate auditing function to ensure no one is profiting unfairly from the campaign. All investments and conflicts of interest would have to be publicly disclosed. The rules of the audit should include caps on individual salaries and no investor profits from the campaign function. (For example, this rule would apply to me.)

    # # #

    Yeah right. Never mind that the entire overall strategy is Google profit, Clinton profit, Insider profit, etc


    “Chairman Cash”: John Podesta Paid $7,000/Month By Foundation Run by Banker With Ties To Financial Crisis


    FT Endorses Hillary Clinton: “Trump Has Demonstrated Contempt Towards American Democracy Itself”
    by Tyler Durden


    [Durden] The overarching argument here is that only by electing Hillary will the “legitimacy of the US political system” be validated.

    [FT] The 2016 election, more than any in recent memory, is a test for the legitimacy of the US political system, with profound implications for the liberal world order. Mrs Clinton carries enough baggage to fill a Boeing 747. She is not trusted by the majority of voters. But she is manifestly more competent than Mr Trump whose braggadocio, divisiveness and meanness are on daily display. Despite her faults, Mrs Clinton is eminently qualified to be the first woman elected to the White House. She has the Financial Times’ endorsement.

    [Durden] Perhaps the FT is correct: after all, if anything, the recent unprecedented leaks into Hillary’s campaign reveal that the US political system is mostly about kickbacks, collusion with the media and shady backroom deals which enrich a handful of people under a “charitable” wrapper to make it that much more palatable to the public.






  29. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 12:36 pm said:

    CNN Decries “Fake News” Websites (Then Stealth Edits Its Own Article)

    There is a plague of “fake news” apparently, and CNN is here to help you ‘dear voter’ see through the deception to the Clinton-campaign-confirmed narrative you should be paying attention. While it not enough that we have pointed out CNN’s numerous questionable actions (here, here, and here), along with today’s news of Donna Brazile’s resignation, but just this weekend CNN was caught ‘stealth editing’ false claims made against Trump. Fake news indeed…



  30. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 1:45 pm said:

    The Clinton-Obama E-mail Scandal

    Months ago, the State Department grudgingly acknowledged that Clinton and President Obama had exchanged at least 18 e-mails over Clinton’s private account, and FBI reports obtained by Congress revealed that Obama used an alias on those occasions. Prior to that revelation, Podesta suggested to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s top aide at State and a key campaign adviser, that the White House invoke executive privilege to shield those exchanges from a congressional subpoena.
    FBI director James Comey’s she-did-but-she-didn’t press conference had already made it clear that Clinton was given special treatment.

    Podesta’s proposal confirms that top advisers to Obama and Clinton were well aware of the improper e-mail setup, and provides further evidence that the likeliest explanation for the demise of the Clinton investigation is the simplest: The Clinton e-mail scandal is also the Obama e-mail scandal. Because the president’s e-mails would be admissible as evidence in the event of a Clinton prosecution; because it would then become clear that the president himself had sent classified information over a non-secure e-mail server, the communications of high-level executive officials with the president being presumptively classified; and because the president could not formally invoke executive privilege without tacitly admitting Clinton’s guilt — the president could not let any prosecution go forward.


    # # #


    Obama (POTUS) => Lynch (DOJ) => Comey (FBI) => Clinton (DNC)


  31. You can’t help feeling that this is just absolutely massive


    I’m sure NZ news will find some cats stuck in trees to run stories on

  32. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm said:

    >”You can’t help feeling that this is just absolutely massive”


    Yes, bigger than Watergate. Tyler Durdan – “Watergate is looking like thin gruel compared to this fantastic Bouillabaisse of a presidential campaign fiasco.” “This story has so many legs, it looks like a Amazonian centipede compared to the lumbering cockroach that was Watergate.”


    Welcome To The Halloween Nation



    To be fair on Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward (Wash Post) and Watergate, is does help to have the internet for this one. No point going to Wash Post for Clintongate these days



  33. Maggy Wassilieff on November 2, 2016 at 5:16 pm said:

    Over on Kiwiblog Dennis Horne uses the moniker William of Ockham.

    I’m sure he will appreciate this piece from Mark Steyn on “Occam’s Weiner”


  34. Steyn writes brilliantly, as always

    I recently binge-watched House of Cards on Netflix, which for those that don’t know is about an unscrupulous and corrupt Democrat and his wife,  Frank and Claire Underwood.


    I had an inkling that this was based loosely on the Clintons (but tamer and more plausible. Frank Underwood only kills two people in the series)

    I later found out that Kevin Spacey, who plays Underwood, and directed the series, had been a visitor to Jeff Epstein’s private island on the infamous Lolita Express. Epstein pleaded guilty to around 35 cases of sex with minors, getting 10 months I think


    Other regulars to “Orgy Island” via the Lolita Express included Bill and Hillary Clinton, and a certain Donald Trump.

    Meanwhile, Huma Abedin, Hillary’s PA and (rumoured) lesbian lover, married to sexting addict Anthony Weiner, is directly connected to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

    You couldn’t make up a more crazy plot…

  35. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 6:25 pm said:

    >“Orgy Island” via the Lolita Express

    Peripheral sex sleaze as bad or worse than the political sleaze. Not sure that I want to keep up with it but I looked up where that particular avenue might be leading:

    Will The FBI Email Investigation Shed New Light On The Lolita Express And Other Clinton Sex Scandals?
    Information regarding Clinton ties to Jeffrey Epstein and “the Lolita Express” could be extremely explosive
    Michael Snyder End Of The American Dream – November 1

    Only just discovered a couple of days ago that Chelsea is not Bill’s Daughter. Not my zone obviously.

  36. The Hillary Clinton Takeover of the United States




    Hillary and Bill Clinton are attempting a takeover of the United States and will stop at nothing. A coup d’état of this magnitude has never been affected in such a subtly calculated way. 

    Seems legit.


  37. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 7:09 pm said:

    Ton of background to this thread previously starting here:

    Soros, Voting machines, Creamer,

    And a bit starting here:

    #Podesta conspiracy 2.0, Russian Television, Ballot troubles

  38. I caught up with TVOne “News”

    Clinton and Trump are neck and neck, according to some polls


    That’s it, over to the footie

    (No cats up trees tonight)


  39. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2016 at 10:51 pm said:

    Hillary for Prison T-Shirts

  40. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2016 at 10:34 am said:

    ‘How Politics Poisoned The Economy’
    Authored by Bonner & Partners’ Bill Bonner, annotated by Acting-Man’s Pater Tenebrarum

    Deep State in Control


    We have been looking at the way the feds’ post-1971 fake money changed our whole society: our economy, our government, and our home life, too. Gone is the wealth-producing economy; now we have one that adds debt and subtracts real wealth.

    As we noted, if you calculated “real” (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth according to the methodology used during the Reagan era, you would see that the nation has been getting poorer since 1989.

    Gone is the Old Republic, too, with its bleeding-heart liberals and foot-dragging, tightwad conservatives. Now we have only the Deep State Party – firmly in control of Congress, Wall Street, defense, health care, academia, and the mainstream press.

    Gone, too, are the home-cooked meals… the Father Knows Best households… the one-car families… the breadwinners… and the homemakers. Today, the problems that used to afflict the inner city – drug addiction, broken homes – have spread to the suburbs and rural areas.

    Godawful Mess

    How did all this happen? There are only two ways to get what you want in a community: Give and take. Or just take. Either you work, add value, negotiate, and trade for what you want; or you pull out a pistol. It’s either markets or politics, in other words.

    But politics is more than just running for office. It is not fixed and well-contained. Instead, it’s a dangerous and volatile fluid – a noxious enzyme that comes out of man’s most primitive urges and leaks into the economy and society.

    People are all, to some degree, as capable of “politics” just as they are capable of murder. Some are prone to it. And sometimes, a whole society gets taken over by it.

    As Franz Oppenheimer noted in his analysis of the State (full title: The State – Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically), there are two ways of obtaining wealth and income: by economic means or by political means. The latter means essentially forcibly taking wealth under the color of law from those who have obtained it by economic means.


    The Triumph of Politics


    In the case of medical care, for example, the share of the U.S. GDP that went into the healthcare industry increased from less than 7% in 1970 to over 17% today. How did that happen? Politics. Since 1970, the number of doctors has barely doubled. But the number of “administrative employees” has gone up 3,000%.

    The same is true in education. Teachers provide real value for the money; administrators play politics. Since 1970, the number of teachers has risen about 60%. The number of non-teaching administrators has gone up more than twice as much.


    There was only one officer for every 10 enlisted men when the U.S. won World War II. Now there are twice as many officers and four times as many generals – and we haven’t won a war since.

    As President Reagan’s chief budget advisor David Stockman foresaw 30 years ago: we are seeing the final “triumph of politics.” The elections are just a sideshow.



    Deep state in the United States – From Wikipedia

    Writers, journalists, political scientists and political activists in the United States have for decades expressed concerns about the existence of a deep state or state within a state, which they suspect secretly controls public policy, regardless of which party controls the country’s democratic institutions.


    # # #

    The mega rich have discovered NZ to be a safe haven. Not sure what will come to the surface when the global economy and stability really tanks. We’ve been relatively immune so far.


  41. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2016 at 12:03 pm said:

    >”The mega rich have discovered NZ to be a safe haven”


    ‘Is New Zealand the new haven for the world’s mega rich?’


  42. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2016 at 12:07 pm said:

    UNsilenced: Whistleblower Exposes UN Culture of Corruption

    When she stumbled across massive corruption and made-up statistics in her job at the United Nations, Rasna Warah knew she needed to act. But when she tried to blow the whistle, she was viciously attacked, publicly humiliated, threatened, intimidated, and more. Unfortunately, though, as Warah explains in her new book UNsilenced: UNmasking the United Nations’ Culture of Cover-ups, Corruption and Impunity, her case is far from unique.

    In fact, the corruption and lawlessness across the UN appears to be systemic. Some of the cases described in the book and the pages of The New American magazine make the scandals she exposed and the retaliation she suffered seem mild by comparison. Indeed, in her book, she actually spends very little time dwelling on her own case, but delves instead into some of the many other known and unknown scandals to rock the global organization.


    It got so bad that in 2015, as Warah explains, a coalition of nine UN whistleblowers got together to raise the matter with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. “Each of us has blown the whistle on serious wrongdoing, gross misconduct, and even criminal acts at the United Nations,” the group wrote in the letter, which is quoted in the book. “Our collective experience of reporting misconduct in the UN covers sexual exploitation, abuse of power, corruption, and other criminals activity over a period of more than a decade and a half.”

    Instead of the UN scrambling to make things right, though, it responded in every case by attacking the whistleblower instead of the crimes, abuse, and the people behind the problems. “Each of us has faced retaliation for reporting the wrongdoing,” the whistleblowers continued. “Our cases are well-known, and sadly, deter others from reporting wrongdoing. This must change.” Unfortunately for humanity, despite threats from Congress to cut funding, and increasingly widespread media attention, nothing has changed, as the book documents extensively.

    Continues at length >>>>>


  43. FBI now investigating large underage sex ring involving the Clintons



  44. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2016 at 8:51 am said:

    Confounding Constitutional Conundrums If Clinton is Indicted

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 3, 2016): If Hillary Clinton is indicted – reportedly unlikely, and virtually impossible for it to occur before the election – such an unprecedented situation could create a variety of confounding constitutional conundrums and other problems which legal scholars are only beginning to wrestle with, says the lawyer who helped get the special prosecutors which led to President Nixon’s downfall.

    “This highly unlikely scenario, one growing out of a separate kiddy porn investigation, has the potential to create several different possible constitutional crises as serious as Watergate,” argues public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whose legal action seeking a special prosecutor for the Watergate situation led to the appointment of two of them, and subsequently to Richard Nixon’s resignation.

    To begin with, if Clinton is indicted – indeed, even before she is indicted – President Barack Obama could, while he is still in office, pardon her for any and all federal crimes she may be committed.

    There is clear precedent. In September of 1974, President Gerald Ford gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he may have committed against the U.S. while president.

    His reasoning, which Obama may find persuasive, is that it was in the best interests of the country to put the situation behind us. Ford claimed it was “a tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must.”

    A win by Donald Trump would create major legal risks for Clinton since it would greatly increase the chances of her indictment, and eventual conviction, because Trump has announced that he has pre-judged her guilt, and believes she should be in jail (actually prison).

    Thus, anyone appointed as Attorney General would probably have to share Trump’s views regarding Clinton. Moreover, if he were unwilling to press as hard as Trump wished, he would be serving at Trump’s pleasure, and can be fired for disobeying even a legally-dubious order to insure her conviction.

    There is also clear precedent here. In what is called the “Saturday Night Massacre,” President Nixon forced the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson, and then newly-appointed Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, when they each refused to go along with Nixon’s attempt to scuttle a subpoena issued against him by a special prosecutor.

    If, however, Clinton is indicted after winning the election but before being inaugurated, she would not then automatically gain immunity from prosecution, but her lawyers could almost certainly stall the trial until after she became president.

    During that period of time, it is also very unlikely that the lame-duck House would hold hearings and stage debates to try to impeach her (i.e., charge her with wrongdoing) since she could not be removed from an office (i.e. convict her of the impeachment) she didn’t yet hold.




    # # #


    Meanwhile, WSJ reports a “civil war” going on between the FBI and DOJ and Trump wants an ex Goldman Sachs and ex Soros employee, currently working in his campaign, as Treasurer.

    And over in the UK Brexit’s hit a snag.

    And what happened to Warmer World? I’ve had the Swanni on a lot lately.

  45. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2016 at 9:28 am said:

    The FBI’s White Collar Crime Unit Is Probing The Clinton Foundation

    by Tyler Durden Nov 3, 2016

    Now that thanks to first the WSJ, and then Fox News, the public is aware that a probe into the Clinton Foundation is not only a hot topic for both the FBI and the DOJ (and has managed to split the law enforcement organizations along ideological party lines), but is also actively ongoing despite the DOJ’s attempts to squash it.


    Wikileaks Warns Of An “FBI-DOJ Podesta Email Special” Release At 4PM EST


    Julian Assange Ends The Suspense: “The Source Of Hacked Emails Is Not Russia”

    “The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source,” Assange told the veteran Australian broadcaster [John Pilger] as part of a 25-minute interview.


    # # #

    Looking forward to hearing updates on tonight’s TV news.

    Or not.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2016 at 10:46 am said:

    The Clinton E-mails Are Critical to the Clinton Foundation Investigation

    by Andrew C. McCarthy November 1, 2016

    Why is Lynch rushing the search for classified e-mails but blocking the pay-to-play corruption probe?


    Let me unpack this.

    Readers are unlikely to know that the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn is not just any United States attorney’s office. It is the office that was headed by Attorney General Loretta Lynch until President Obama elevated her to attorney general less than two years ago.

    It was in the EDNY that Ms. Lynch first came to national prominence in 1999, when she was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bill Clinton — the husband of the main subject of the FBI’s investigations with whom Lynch furtively met in the back of a plane parked on an Arizona tarmac days before the announcement that Mrs. Clinton would not be indicted. Obama reappointed Lynch as the EDNY’s U.S. attorney in 2010. She was thus in charge of staffing that office for nearly six years before coming to Main Justice in Washington. That means the EDNY is full of attorneys Lynch hired and supervised.

    When we learn that Clinton Foundation investigators are being denied access to patently relevant evidence by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, those are the prosecutors — Loretta Lynch’s prosecutors — we are talking about


    Clearly, that is why agents on the FBI’s Clinton Foundation team wanted to get their investigation out of the EDNY’s clutches and move it to the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York (my office for many years, as well as Jim Comey’s). The SDNY has a tradition of relative independence from the Justice Department and a well-earned reputation for pursuing political-corruption cases aggressively — a reputation burnished by U.S. attorney Preet Bharara’s prosecutions of prominent politicians from both parties.

    — 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. [He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.]


    # # #

    Astounding how so many US Attorney Generals are just political actors for Obama-Clinton-DNC etc, they have no interest in impartial justice. This is evident in the Schneiderman-Healey et al Exxon-Climate Sceptic witch hunt.

    The FBI has to shop around AG offices to find non-partisan prosecutors.

    I suppose it could be worse.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2016 at 10:59 am said:

    Should be:


    “Astounding how so many US Attorney Generals [and District Attorneys] are just political actors for Obama-Clinton-DNC etc, they have no interest in impartial justice. This is evident in the Schneiderman-Healey et al Exxon-Climate Sceptic witch hunt.”

    “The FBI has to shop around [DA] offices to find non-partisan prosecutors”

    Eric Schneiderman is New York State AG.

  48. Richard Treadgold on November 4, 2016 at 11:39 am said:


    I suppose it could be worse.

    Maybe, but I can’t see how.

  49. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2016 at 3:23 pm said:

    Latest WikiLeaks Dump Includes Full List Of Fees From Clinton Global Initiative Donors [includes ExxonMobil]

    by Tyler Durden Nov 3, 2016

    The latest WikiLeaks dump from this morning includes a very detailed list of 2012/2013 donors to the Clinton Global Initiative. Like the donors to the Clinton Foundation (which we reviewed here), the list is a who’s who of wall street banks, giant energy corporations, chemical conglomerates and multi-national pharmas…you know, all the “shady” corporations that you’ve been told were in bed with the Republicans.

    [see lists]

    Of course, we’re sure that Pfizer will be interested to learn of the following email from Neera Tanden in which she and John Podesta plot over how to attack the “drug companies” in order to rally enthusiasm among Hillary’s base….such a noble cause. According to Neera, Hillary “hates (or at least used to hate) the drug companies.” Of course, we sympathize with Neera, it is difficult to keep up with Hillary’s constantly changing views on public policy (aka: her donor list).

    [see emails]


  50. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2016 at 5:48 pm said:

    ‘What Does It Take To Bring Hillary Clinton To Justice?’

    by Pepe Escobar, op-ed via RT.com, Nov 3, 2016,

    Virtually the whole planet holds its collective breath at the prospect of Hillary Clinton possibly becoming the next President of the United States (POTUS).

    How’s that humanly possible, as the (daily) Bonfire of The Scandals – relentlessly fed by WikiLeaks revelations and now converging FBI investigations – can now be seen from interstellar space?

    It’s possible because Hillary Clinton, slouching through a paroxysm of manufactured hysteria, is supported by virtually the whole US establishment, a consensual neocon/neoliberalcon War Party/Wall Street/corporate media axis.

    But History has a tendency to show us there’s always a straw that breaks the camel’s back.

    This could be it – as revealed by WikiLeaks; March 2, 2015, the day when John Podesta wrote, “we are going to have to dump all those emails.”

    That happened to be the exact same day it was revealed Hillary Clinton had used a personal email server as Secretary of State.

    Yet this reveals only part of the puzzle. There’s got to be a response to Podesta’s email – which WikiLeaks may, or may not, leak in the next few days before the election. If the back and forth clearly shows intent (to mislead), then we’ve got a 100 percent smoking gun: the whole Clinton (cash) machine narrative – according to which Hillary just deleted “personal” emails – crumbles like the ultimate House of Cards.

    Moreover, that would unveil what was from the start the privileged Clinton machine strategy: to thwart the subsequent internal State Dept. and FBI investigations.

    As far as the Clinton machine is concerned, an interlocking influence peddling pile up is the norm. John Podesta also happens to be the founder of the Center for American Progress – a George Soros operation and prime recruiting ground for Obama administration officials, including US Treasury operatives who decided which elite Too Big To Fail (TBTF) financial giants would be spared after the 2008 crisis. DCLeaks.com, for its part, has connected Soros Open Society foundations to global funding rackets directly leading to subversion of governments and outright regime change (obviously sparing Clinton Foundation donors.)

    Exceptional bananas, anyone?

    The perfectly timed slow drip of WikiLeaks revelations, for the Clinton machine, feels like a sophisticated form of Chinese torture. To alleviate the pain, the relentless standard spin has been to change the subject, blame the messenger, and attribute it all to “evil” Russian hacking when the real source for the leaks might have come straight from the belly of the (Washington) beast.

    At the Valdai discussion club last week, it took President Putin only a few sentences to debunk the whole Clinton machine narrative with a bang:

    “Another mythical and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police. You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.

    I have to ask myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow influence the American people’s choice? America is not some kind of ‘banana republic’, after all, but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong.”

    Reality, though, continues to insist on offering multiple, overlapping banana republic instances, configuring a giant black hole of transparency.

    Anthropologist Janine Wedel has been one of the few in Clinton-linked US mainstream media acknowledging how Bill Clinton, while Hillary was Secretary of State, perfected his version of “philantro-capitalism” (actually a money laundering “pay to play” racket), a practice “by no means confined to the Clintons”.

    And the racket prospered with inbuilt nuggets, such as Hillary being perfectly aware that prime Clinton Foundation donors Qatar and Saudi Arabia were also financing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

    [continues >>>>>]

    Huma, the Fall Princess

    Follow the evidence


    # # #

    Remember, RT.com is Russian Television.

  51. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2016 at 6:27 pm said:

    [Escobar] – “What Does It Take To Bring Hillary Clinton To Justice?”

    [Putin] – “America is not some kind of ‘banana republic’, after all, but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong.”

    I’m reminded of hurricane Katrina and New Orleans waiting for help to arrive. The US military could get to Afghanistan in 19 hours but it took 4 days for troops to get to New Orleans.

    I watched that unfold in complete amazement.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2016 at 7:38 pm said:

    The Office of the President of the United States

    November 3, 2016 by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

    Amidst the epic flood of political statements and media commentary that keeps on rolling in and on, there’s something that doesn’t seem to occur to most people, and it should. That is, the unfortunate but apparently inevitable discussion about all the unfortunate and/or illegal things that either candidate may or may not have done, must be seen in the light of the capacity in which -perceived- errors or even crimes are committed. It is essential to this issue.

    What far too many people are far too eager to ignore is that everything Donald Trump may have done that may have been illegal or on the edge, he did as a private person, and most of what Hillary Clinton has done in that same category was as a representative of the American government and hence the American people. The demands and standards when it comes to behavior are much higher for people in representative government positions than they are for private citizens, and they are so for good reason.


    Obama acted presidential on Monday; he did not on Wednesday. And that’s not all. On Monday, Obama had already made another questionable move. Not only did he seem to ‘support’ Comey, he also lavished praise on Donna Brazile, the -interim- head of the Clinton campaign.

    He did so mere hours (!) after Brazile had been fired by CNN, a network that drools Clinton 24/7. So when even CNN had had enough, Obama found it appropriate to say “she is a person of high character”. That does not add up. Here’s from Adriana Cohen at the Boston Herald in one of the best pieces I’ve read on the whole issue:

    To put how serious this is into context, if Brazile traded stocks off inside information, the SEC would toss her in jail faster than you can say Martha Stewart. Yet, despite all of the above, the White House yesterday praised her integrity. You read that right. When asked about the hacked emails White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “No, the president believes she has done a fine job stepping in during a very difficult situation to lead the Democratic Party … she is a person of high character. She is a true professional who is a tenacious and effective advocate for Democrats.”

    Why was Brazile sacked? For feeding the Clintonians debate questions. As per The Hill:

    In an email dated March 5, 2016 — the day before a CNN debate in Flint, Mich. — Brazile sent Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and communications director Jennifer Palmieri an email with the subject line, “One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash.” “Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint,” she wrote.

    Think about this for a second. Donna Brazile gets fired by CNN for -very illegally- letting the Clinton campaign in on a question that will be asked in a debate (with Bernie Sanders). Now, I think we can all agree that CNN does not have excessively high moral standards. And perhaps they don’t have to. But the president of the United States does.

    Ergo: while the network said they were ‘completely uncomfortable’ with Brazile’s ‘interactions with campaign’, the same Donna Brazile was not only praised by the president, who is supposed to stand above all parties and divisions by the very nature of the Office he holds, she is also still the head of the Democratic campaign.

    In other words, the sender of the messages containing debate questions (there were more than one) gets fired by one end of the ‘transaction’, but the receiving end has no problems with that exact same action, and then even sees that decision sanctioned by the nation’s president.

    As if it wasn’t not illegal for Hillary to have those questions before the debate. There’s a sender and a receiver, and both are equally to blame. And so is Hillary, because of course she knew the questions had to have been obtained illegally. But she keeps on Brazile, the sender, as head of her campaign, as well as Podesta and Palmieri, the receivers, despite all this.

    What does that tell you? Regardless of legal implications, doesn’t that scream out something in the vein of: “When we go low, but do we go really low”? What does it tell you when the Clintonians, and Obama, are fine with something even CNN won’t stand for? It can only mean that a network like CNN, not exactly famous for its moral stances, has higher moral standards than the campaign for a candidate for the presidency of the United States, a position where moral standards are a high priority.

    These are the things that drag down the entire American political system. Obama’s statements on the FBI and Donna Brazile drag down the office of the president. And if Hillary would be elected on November 8, that office would be dragged down that much more.

    And not only can we now foresee, and must we prepare for, serious domestic unrest no matter what the election result will be (I liked the notion I read somewhere of ‘America between 9/11 and 11/9’), the damage will also reverberate globally. I’ve said it before, I don’t see how Hillary and her people can still backtrack on all the innuendo they spread on Russia, but to be presidential, she will not have a choice.

    Or she would risk getting stuck somewhere in the middle of all the untruths and outright lies about Putin, Assange and now James Comey, and that would mean a behemoth blemish on the presidency, something neither she nor the American political system can afford. You need more than just insinuations, you need at least kernels of truth if you want to be president.

    Continues >>>>>>

    # # #

    Seems fanciful, dragging moral standards and truth into all of this.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on November 5, 2016 at 9:06 am said:

    Dubious reports, but apparently the NYPD had Weiners laptop long BEFORE the FBI and the NYPD seems to be far more advanced on this than the FBI.

    BREAKING BOMBSHELL: NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation, Pay to Play, Perjury – November 2, 2016

    New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence “to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life,” NYPD sources told True Pundit.

    NYPD sources said Clinton’s “crew” also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress in addition to her aides and insiders.

    The NYPD seized the computer from Weiner during a search warrant and detectives discovered a trove of over 500,000 emails to and from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and other insiders during her tenure as secretary of state. The content of those emails sparked the FBI to reopen its defunct email investigation into Clinton on Friday.

    But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:

    Money laundering
    Child exploitation
    Sex crimes with minors (children)
    Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
    Obstruction of justice
    Other felony crimes

    NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department’s highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices.

    “What’s in the emails is staggering and as a father, it turned my stomach,” the NYPD Chief said. “There is not going to be any Houdini-like escape from what we found. We have copies of everything. We will ship them to Wikileaks or I will personally hold my own press conference if it comes to that.”

    The NYPD Chief said once Comey saw the alarming contents of the emails he was forced to reopen a criminal probe against Clinton.

    “People are going to prison,” he said.


    Erik Prince [Blackwater] : NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case – 4 Nov 2016

    “The point being, fortunately, it’s not just the FBI; [there are] five different offices that are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well,” Prince said, citing the Wall Street Journal reporting that has “exposed downdraft, back pressure from the Justice Department” against both the FBI and NYPD, in an effort to “keep the sunlight and the disinfecting effects of the truth and transparency from shining on this great evil that has gone on, and is slowly being exposed.”

    “The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton, to prevent any real justice from being done,” he warned.

    As for the mayor of New York City, Prince said he has heard that “de Blasio wants to stay away from this.”

    “The evidence is so bad, the email content is so bad, that I think even he wants to stay away from it, which is really telling,” he said.

    Prince reported that the other legislators involved in the case “have not been named yet,” and urged the NYPD to hold a press conference and name them.

    “I wish they’d do it today,” he said. “These are the unusual sliding-door moments of history, that people can stand up and be counted, and make a real difference, and to save a Republic, save a Constitution that we actually need and love, that our forefathers fought and died for. For any cop that is aware of this level of wrongdoing, and they have veterans in their family, or deceased veterans in their family, they owe it to them to stand up, to stand and be counted today, and shine the light of truth on this great evil.”

    “From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down,” he added.


    # # #

    >“The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton”

    I don’t think this is original from Prince. I’ve seen this line of reasoning elsewhere with exactly the same “run out the clock” sport term being used. But that does seem to be the case.

    If there really is this groundswell in both the NYPD and FBI then a Hillary Clinton presidency will be a riveting spectacle – even before inauguration.

    And there was me thinking the Obama presidency would take the cake. Not even close.

  54. Richard C (NZ) on November 5, 2016 at 9:21 am said:

    NZ Herald had an article on this:

    Hacked memo: Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’ – 27 October 2016

    Basically just pay-for-play.

  55. Richard C (NZ) on November 5, 2016 at 9:36 am said:

    [Escobar] – Bill Clinton, while Hillary was Secretary of State, perfected his version of “philantro-capitalism” (actually a money laundering “pay to play” racket), a practice “by no means confined to the Clintons”

    For [Bill} Clinton, New Wealth In Speeches – February 23, 2007

    His paid speeches included $150,000 appearances before landlord groups, biotechnology firms and food distributors, as well as speeches in England, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia that together netted him more than $1.6 million. On one particularly good day in Canada, Clinton made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president.


    # # #

    We have to remember that there were plenty of people queuing up to give their money to Bill Clinton – including New Zealanders. It’s the charisma thing, a bit like a tele-evangelists. People flock to their idea of the the best wisdom money can buy being spoken by their X-factor idol – and hand over their money to them so they can bathe in the greatness they perceive.

    I wonder whether they now think it was money well spent.

  56. Some of this stuff is so crazy I am reluctant to post it

    But here goes

    “Clinton’s inner circle includes child traffickers, pedophiles, and now members of a “sex cult,” the recent Podesta emails from Wikileaks reveals.

    An email to John Podesta reads, “I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place. Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining?”


  57. Richard Treadgold on November 5, 2016 at 12:09 pm said:


    Some of this stuff is so crazy I am reluctant to post it

    Yes, I agree. It is so crazy you have to question whether we can trust any of these sources. Even one trustworthy source would be helpful. The presidency is a highly-valued prize that has spawned ugly insinuations and allegations a few times already. It’s hard to keep one’s head in this latest maelstrom, yet it seems a wise thing to try.

    I’ve just looked up ‘spirit cooking dinner’ and learned enough to stop looking but too much to unlearn. It is so far beyond ugly it’s impossible to believe that anyone—much less a group constantly in the public eye—spending years in the top echelons of society could be associated with it and no hint has reached our ears before this election.

    Hence the need for a reliable source. I shall keep calm and carry on.

  58. I’ll stick to the idea that “spirit cooking” is marinating things in Brandy

    I generally trust Mike Cernovich though, that the people mentioned in the Podesta emails are into this kind of stuff. There are even books on Amazon on “spirit cooking”

    Not my bag, as they say, and I suppose if it isn’t illegal and only consenting adults are involved, one may ask what business it is of ours.

  59. Richard Treadgold on November 5, 2016 at 12:57 pm said:


    marinating things in Brandy

    Cute. I see what you did there.

    I’ve not encountered Cernovich, so it’s useful to have your comments, thanks.

    Our business: coming to our notice makes it our business, and we can use any yardstick we like to determine our vote. Regarding lawful behaviour, we can express any opinion we like, but public authorities won’t act against the lawful behaviour but may restrain our criticism. Candidates for public office are constrained by higher standards than others, and our disapproval can damage their chances of election. Candidates for the highest office can have their prospects damaged as much by immorality as by illegality, or even the mere sniff of it—whether that’s fair or unfair. That’s why a reliable source is required to judge these most damaging allegations.

    Because at the moment the idiotic Trump is looking very attractive.

  60. “Because at the moment the idiotic Trump is looking very attractive”

    yet, if you mention this in polite company in NZ, people look at you aghast

  61. Richard C (NZ) on November 5, 2016 at 1:32 pm said:

    Re Marina Abramovic and Podesta brothers. There’s a whole other story going on here that occult watchers are familiar with. Not appropriate here I don’t think except for this:

    What is “spirit cooking”?

    The ceremony is, “meant to symbolize the union between the microcosm, Man, and the macrocosm, the Divine, which is a representation of one of the prime maxims in Hermeticism “As Above, So Below.”


    Students of Israel know perfectly well that the “Star of David” on the Israel flag is no such thing, it is the Hermetic, Kabbalist, symbol of “As Above, So Below.”.

    Duality of the Two Triangles
    In Eastern, Kabbalistic, and occult circles, the hexagram’s meaning is commonly closely tied to the fact that it is composed of two triangles pointing in opposite directions. This relates to the union of opposites, such as male and female. It also commonly references the union of the spiritual and the physical, with spiritual reality reaching down and physical reality stretching upward. This intertwining of worlds can also be seen as a representation of the Hermetic principle “As above, so below,” referencing how changes in one world reflect changes in the other.

    The ancient Jewish symbol of Israel is the 7 branched candlestick (Menorah), and 7 is the number of Jesus. In other words, the Torah (Judaism) and Biblical (Torah+Christian) symbol for Israel was deposed by Kabbalistic symbolism on the Israel flag in 1948.

    Basically we’re talking Satanic subversion but ‘nuther story.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on November 5, 2016 at 2:22 pm said:

    >”Some of this stuff is so crazy I am reluctant to post it”

    Know what you mean. However, in regard to Hillary specifically, crazy is not the appropriate characterization I don’t think. We need a whole other lexicon for that e.g. what some in the FBI are coming up with, albeit with difficulty.

    Lubos Motl reminds of some Hillary proclivities:

    Hillary, the pro-séance president

    We may have forgotten but some years ago, we were all impressed by that: while in the White House, Hillary Clinton communed with dead Eleanor Roosevelt’s ghost (Bill Clinton confirmed it in 2012). At least that’s what she told us. It would be quite an achievement for a pro-science politician. But for a pro-séance one, it’s no big deal.


    Ronald Reagan’s wife Nancy consulted psychics and astrology to determine appropriate “courses of action” too so nothing new there. Hillary, of course, described her sessions with New Age priestess Jean Houston as “brainstorming” and “visualizing” rather than communing with spirits. Just ordinary everyday stuff apparently.

    Then there’s the photo of Hillary being blessed by a native American shaman:

    And Hillary’s Illuminist Phoenix Bird lapel pin [lots of background detail]

    There’s been screeds in these veins for a long time now. Bet those websites are getting some hits lately. Be news to many young people I’m thinking.

  63. “Spirit cooking” is now going viral

    Oh, and Kim Dotcom just tweeted that a video of Bill Clinton having sex with minors will be released soon. I’m not sure about KDC though he does seem cosy with Assange

    Please stop the world, I want to get off. Good day for gardening!

  64. Richard C (NZ) on November 5, 2016 at 4:38 pm said:

    Obama is prepared for a constitutional “crisis”:

    Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness March 16, 2012

    Otherwise known as the “Doomsday Order” which grants the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense and other agencies complete control of all US resources, including the ability to seize, confiscate or re-delegate resources, materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.

    “In a nutshell, it’s the blueprint for Peacetime Martial Law and it gives the president the power to take just about anything deemed necessary for “National Defense”, whatever they decide that is.” – The Intel Hub.

  65. Remember though, that Trump is “literally Hitler”

    That’s what the internet was meming about 8 weeks ago

  66. Richard C (NZ) on November 5, 2016 at 7:16 pm said:

    >Trump is “literally Hitler”

    Hyperbole rules. “The fate of the world is teetering” according to Obama a couple of days ago.

    Venezuelans, Phillipinos (think Duterte), Syrians, Iraqis, Armenians, Central Americans, Ukrainians, Libyans might point out that the fate of their world has been teetering for a while now.

    But with the prospect of Hillary Clinton in power I’m inclined to agree with Obama. There is a view on the right that for the next 4 years they might as well “get it over with as soon as possible” for either candidate, or words to that effect. Given the havoc trailing Clinton already I think it will be a very long 4 years not just in the US – if the rest of the world is lucky that is.

    Not forgetting the US was silly enough to elect Obama twice i.e. 8 years. During which time he has perfected congressional bypass:

    Forget executive orders: Obama finds creative means to bypass Congress – 2013

    Move over executive orders. President Obama has another tool to push policy absent congressional stamp — and it’s far less known and controversial. It’s called executive action.

    The beauty of the action is that it avoids Republican criticisms and conservative charges that Mr. Obama acts like a “monarch” when issuing executive orders, The Hill reports. So while on paper, Mr. Obama may actually appear as if he’s issuing fewer executive orders than many other presidents who have served two terms, the reality is he’s still finding plenty of ways to bypass Congress. He’s just not calling those ways executive orders.


    I expect Hillary will follow Obama’s lead like a duck to water. Probably a lot more “creative” too.

  67. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2016 at 11:29 am said:

    Wood on Trump:

    “As misguided as he may be on a few specific issues, he strikes me as someone who could set the proper tone and bring a wrecking ball to global corporate scams in the areas of climate and trade,”

    Maybe, but I have doubts Trump would be able to actually make much difference in only 4 years (could be wrong). I think economic forces (i.e. the consequences of debt) will be the overriding driver no matter who wins in the US. Same for Europe, China, and just about everywhere else.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2016 at 12:07 pm said:


    “Frankly, African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks live and unborn but not a pence for job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure,”

    I follow NFL where San Francisco 49er QB Colin Kaepernick started the “take a knee” (QB play term) protest during the national anthem that several others have followed. I’m an ex track and field athlete and vividly remember the Carlos and Smith Black Power salutes on the medal podium at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City, after which they were sent home. The NFL “knee” protests are somewhat different and a reaction to all the police shoot-to-kill deaths of blacks and subsequent street protests all over US.

    I find Trump’s position on this very disappointing. He is instead demanding respect for the police. I just don’t see the need for many police just shooting people dead (think video of black guy shot in his car next to partner and daughter). This isn’t just US police. Remember years ago the Sydney police shooting dead a guy on Bondi Beach who was armed only with a knife. Been similar questionable police shootings in New Zealand too.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2016 at 1:50 pm said:


    Short says America needs “peace, reconstruction, and justice.” “We need jobs, housing, and an end to corruption,” he added, calling for an end to the U.S. government’s “global policing” and for peace with foreign nations. When asked about whether he supported the U.S. Constitution, he responded: “I support Jesus the Christ, the Bible, and respect the law of the United States, but we are losing all of our rights to an encroaching security state.” Short also said he thinks the Constitution may need some new amendments, such as one that would “protect religious freedom from secularists.” Just as importantly, though, he said it was time for corrupt politicians to be jailed, for NAFTA and TPP to be “trashed,” and for the border to be secured.

    To that end, he wants to see Trump win, and “the Soros-funded trouble-makers exposed and their mischief-making stopped.” Noting that black lives “obviously matter,” he blasted the “Black Lives Matter” movement and said many black people realize the organization is using and exploiting blacks. “Do they think we don’t know this is George Soros?” he wondered, noting that the paid protesters often do not dare to show themselves in black communities because they would be chased out.

    # # #

    >Short says America needs “peace, reconstruction, and justice.”

    Ain’t that the truth? I wish them all best with that. Difficult to be optimistic but here’s hoping.

  70. Richard Treadgold on November 6, 2016 at 5:15 pm said:

    Richard C,

    Frankly, African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks live and unborn but not a pence for job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure,

    What’s the reason for singling out blacks for this kind of assistance? Every other race faces the same thing.

  71. If you have a spare 50 mins then Stefan Molyneux, Mike Cernovich and Vox Day have an interesting discussion on the “Spirit Cooking” issue and its greater implications


  72. Richard Treadgold on November 6, 2016 at 7:50 pm said:

    I’m too busy for this.

  73. OK, no worries

    Maybe I am getting overexcited about these utterly crazy US elections, maybe not

  74. Richard Treadgold on November 6, 2016 at 8:18 pm said:

    Yeah. I can understand it to some extent, but we don’t have a vote, so I’d rather avoid the aggravation.

  75. The link I posted was a philosophical discussion on the nature of evil in our globalist society. I do believe we are at an historic crossroads in our civilisation at the moment, but I have to juggle this around work and family like everyone else

    Buckle up, the next few days will be transformative, I feel

  76. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2016 at 9:28 pm said:

    >”What’s the reason for singling out blacks for this kind of assistance? Every other race faces the same thing.”

    Because ……..

    “Frankly, African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks live and unborn but not a pence for …….[something constructive rather than destructive]…….”

    Where are the videos of police shooting dead Hispanics, Whites, Asians, Native Indians, Mexicans, at routine traffic stops as per Philando Castile in Minnesota?

    Where are the nationwide protests of such in the US as per Castile protests and similar?

    Whatever had taken place previously between Castile and the officer was no reason for murder, as the video clearly shows it was. As I understand he was carrying a gun (?) but he was just carrying out the officers orders, he obviously wasn’t pulling a gun in the video.

    My point is upthread that shoot-to-kill by police anywhere in the world (incl NZ) is unnecessary other than exceptional cases. I grew up with guns and hunting. I know that something is seriously wrong if an officer pointing his pistol through a car window at almost point-blank range was aiming to kill and went through with it.

    And again, why did the Sydney police have to shoot dead the guy on Bondi Beach years ago? There was no reason for that. He had no gun, he only had a knife and there was nobody on the beach except him and 2 or 3 officers. The beach had been cleared. That was all on film and on TV.

    This year the NZ police shot dead a guy in Thames in front of children of the family, also on TV. I worked with and talked to a women who was related and distraught the next day, mostly at the thought of the children carrying the memory of the shooting with them. Do you think those children will grow up with respect for the police as Trump is demanding in the US?

    I cannot see how shooting people dead unnecessarily is ever going to engender respect, more likely just the opposite. I know of some incredibly stupid imprisonment in NZ that clogs up prisons but at least that doesn’t mean death. The US police are basically carrying out death sentence and execution without trial. Was Castile’s crime, whatever it was at that traffic stop, something for which a death penalty would be meted out?

    Minnesota abolished the death penalty in 1911 and since then it has never been reinstated. Except at routine traffic stops involving blacks apparently. I’m amazed there’s not more ambush shootings of police. The ambush in Des Moines, Iowa in which 2 officers were shot dead was by a white guy going by his photo. He has just been arrested alive. Capital punishment was abolished in Iowa in 1965, although there have been numerous attempts at reinstating the penalty ever since i.e. he wont be put to death even though he killed 2 officers and he wasn’t shot to death by police during arrest.

    Did Castile shoot 2 officers dead?

    I’m not surprised African Americans are angry. I would be too.

  77. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2016 at 10:16 pm said:

    >”I do believe we are at an historic crossroads in our civilisation at the moment”

    So do I. In many ways too but in the Northern Hemisphere from what I can see. How much we continue to be insulated here in NZ remains to be seen but I do think there will be trickle down of some sort eventually, probably financial/economic as for AFC and GFC. Got smacked by GFC trickle down and haven’t really recovered from it yet.

    I read recently of lawlessness in Germany that is almost unbelievable. That came about in a very short time and that’s the thing. People there are waking up and suddenly everything has changed around them. They have not begun to adapt. In the US many hand-gun buyers are women obtaining protection for themselves and their children. Hand-guns are now restricted in Germany but it has the fourth highest rate of gun ownership worldwide. I am waiting for the day when people take the law into their own hands in Germany. Hillary wants to take away the right of course, so much easier to subdue the Patriots when they are disarmed. But she will have to disarm women too. Not sure which would be the more difficult.

  78. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 1:10 am said:

    >”I do believe we are at an historic crossroads in our civilisation at the moment”

    I don’t subscribe to all of the following commentary and vision of dystopia for the US but something similar can’t be ruled out I don’t think, given the practice run in 2008..

    Civil War II – Fourth Turning Is Intensifying (Part 2) – by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog

    Some of the milder stuff:

    The pushback will be sudden and violent, when it comes.

    It is clearly apparent to me this Fourth Turning’s primary driving force will be the domestic conflict between the Deep State establishment, the deplorables, and irreconcilable factions within the country. To linear thinkers, self-proclaimed progressives, corrupt politicians, subservient government workers, myopic media and those reliant upon the government for their sustenance, the thought of civil war in the United States is inconceivable.

    Civil disorder would likely occur after a financial collapse of epic proportions. With stocks, bonds, and real estate at bubble proportions, interest rates already at zero, the country already in recession, inflation rising, deficits poised to breach $1 trillion per year over the next decade, Obamacare imploding, and real incomes stagnant, the coming economic implosion will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

    Once a chaotic financial collapse gets underway, it will be near impossible to stem the tide. Think back to the chaotic days of September 2008. Our $60 trillion of total credit market debt won’t matter until it matters. The cascade of bad debts will evaporate the remaining trust in our financial system.

    Whether by accident or due to cyber-attack, a breakdown in our electronic based economic system in which store shelves go empty, fuel becomes scarce, and the electronic transfer of welfare benefits ceases, would create mass chaos in the streets. The 300 million guns in this country would get some use. Revenge, retribution and settling scores would be the order of the day.

    With our just in time supply chain, a grid failure or breakdown of electronic ordering, payment and communication would bring the nation to its knees within one week. Millions would perish within a few weeks. Our civilized society would become uncivilized overnight. The downside of a society that stresses individualism over community would be borne out.

    I hope not but we may have to watch from the sidelines and cope with trickle down or flood. Not confined to the US either, prospects for China and Europe aren’t great. We’ve already got Greece and Venezuela for examples too.

    Sobering to contemplate.

  79. John Podesta was apparently offered children as young as 8 for “entertainment”
    at a party. This was discussed in the video I linked to

    There are suggestions of widespread underage sex trafficking which potentially implicates many senior members of the US govt.

    Anthony Wiener was sexting his pictures and rape fantasies with a 15 year old girl who shopped him.
    None of this comes as a surprise given the U.K. Experience

  80. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 9:16 am said:

    The shocking thing is that people aren’t shocked or just don’t look into it.

    I saw an interview with a women at a Hillary rally who described/dismissed the emails as a “distraction”.

    Whether she will realize the depravity of it all one day who knows but seems to me that much of the US populace don’t care – nothing to see, move along. And they are preoccupied with other stuff anyway. They will never learn of it at candidate rallies or baseball/football games. Maybe Trump has got through to some though but not Democrats (and I don’t think Trump is that far removed from sleaze either). And it is not as if Hillary and Bill’s track record is not already known. If people are OK with that they are OK with anything.

    Those who are onto it all are a different breed on the other hand, but there is not many of them relatively.

    I think the US is a very long way from being “great” right now and I don’t see anything in the collective moral fibre and intellect that is going to change much in the future and no leadership in that regard. Trump doesn’t have the credibility or ability for that I don’t think but could be wrong. And if he wins he will be a marked man anyway – there will be cross-hairs on him from all directions.

  81. Richard Treadgold on November 7, 2016 at 9:22 am said:


    I’m not surprised African Americans are angry.

    So we should help them with education, home ownership and health because we’re shooting them?

  82. Richard Treadgold on November 7, 2016 at 9:26 am said:


    The shocking thing is that people aren’t shocked or just don’t look into it.

    Thoughtful remarks here, thanks.

  83. The RNZ interview with John Key this morning had one mention of the potential criminal investigation into the Clintons, and then the usual rant about how Trump will be bad for trade

    I really do think we have sunk into an amoral cesspit
    Either people are in denial, don’t care, or don’t know, I’m not sure

  84. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 11:22 am said:

    >”So we should help them with education, home ownership and health because we’re shooting them?”

    No, you are missing the point entirely RT. Read this again carefully (note it is not just police shooting):

    “Frankly, African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks live and unborn but not a pence for …….[something constructive rather than destructive]…….”

    Firstly, “there is unlimited money to….”.

    In purely economic terms this is an “opportunity cost” i.e. resources are being directed to activity that is obviously highly contentious (think rioting as a result) rather than another activity that surely comes out better in a cost/benefit analysis.

    Secondly, look at what the “unlimited money” is going to. Think of the mentality, morality, and monstrosity behind it. And Hillary is gung-ho on the “abort Blacks live and unborn” part but plenty of black Americans will vote for her anyway in ignorance. Those who know wont.

    Yes there is plenty of awareness in the commentaries I’ve referenced (but haven’t copied in) that the African American community has bought into modern slavery by their, until now, automatic support for the Democrats. The White view can be very jaundiced, for example from Civil War II – Fourth Turning Is Intensifying (Part 2) – by Jim Quinn:

    The welfare state, initiated in the 1960s, has led to the ghettofication and enslavement of blacks.

    The warped welfare system encourages fatherless homes, dependency rather than self-reliance, loss of self respect, and learned ignorance. The traditional family unit is scorned and ridiculed, despite centuries of proof it is the best method for economic advancement and cultural stability. This continued attack from liberal politicians, soulless corporations, elitist academics, and depraved media has pushed the white working middle class to the maximum limit of their tolerance.

    With the Soros backed Black Lives Matter terrorist organization creating havoc across America and spurring black men to slaughter police officers, they have pushed their Obama inspired reparations agenda too far. If they venture far from their Democrat created and run urban ghettos into white rural America they would encounter legal gun owners who can shoot straight.

    The race war would be over quickly with no doubt regarding the winners. Conservative and moderate whites are sick and tired of the liberal agenda of black victimhood. Their response to the black community is: stop having 75% of your children out of wedlock, open a book, get educated, and get a job. Life is hard. Get used to it. No one is owed anything.

    Fine. But for those locked in and subject to a perverse societal model there’s a huge sector that just goes down the inevitable slippery slope. I’m watching an NFL game right now where the highest paid player in the league (Cox, Phil. Eagles) is black and earning tens of millions a year. But for every college educated or pro ball player with rosy prospects there’s plenty of others at the bottom of the heap being jailed or shot, those that haven’t been aborted by the system that is. Of course there are anti-societal types who live by the gun but what does society offer them at the bottom? Death anyway.

    Thing is: these are good times. The tent cities in 2008 and still some in existence demonstrated what can happen in what is supposedly the wealthiest country in the world. And when it all goes wrong the New Orleans stadium after the hurricane provided a glimpse of Quinn’s dystopic vision. That was a hell hole.

    What I’m getting at is society reaps what it sows. If quality of life cannot be nurtured in good times then it sure ain’t going to happen in bad times. To preserve and protect good in dystopia would take weaponry and a whole different outlook when it all goes belly up. There was, and still is, a lot of community spirit in tent cities but it is/was not as if there was a total crash.

    Total breakdown is on the horizon (possibly) and what is in place in society now will carry over. Quinn again:

    …..a breakdown in our electronic based economic system in which store shelves go empty, fuel becomes scarce, and the electronic transfer of welfare benefits ceases, would create mass chaos in the streets. The 300 million guns in this country would get some use. Revenge, retribution and settling scores would be the order of the day.

    No point calling the police for protection, if there were any still being paid to call that is. Venezuela is experiencing the empty shelves but because the police and army are still in full pay the govt is retaining control (sort of). Wouldn’t it be a better approach to be proactive now rather than reactive in these (relative) good times with a view to what could happen in future given some very real examples?

    Also, what was said was this in respect to the US:

    [Short] – “not a pence for job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure”

    This is basically New Zealand social policy.

  85. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 11:39 am said:

    Jo Nova:

    …….some of the claims coming about about the Weiner cache are the most radioactive hairy stuff, which I won’t repeat here. See the Breitbart article. “NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case”. There were 15,000 comments under it last time I looked, but no other outlets are picking up the story.


    The MSM are a black hole. Also:

    I note JeffID at the AirVent is also writing on the US election dramas too [along with Steve McIntyre]. Skeptics don’t like corruption…

    Not as if we are in an unprecedented situation or that our standards have changed either.

  86. Richard Treadgold on November 7, 2016 at 12:02 pm said:


    What’s the reason for singling out blacks for this kind of assistance? Every other race faces the same thing.


    No, you are missing the point entirely RT. Read this again carefully (note it is not just police shooting):

    The full quote was:

    Frankly, African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks live and unborn but not a pence for job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure,

    Seriously? Read it again carefully??? Sorry, professor! I can see what it says, you know; I see the monstrosity for myself. I asked about the assistance aimed at blacks but your account is too garbled to unpack. You don’t explain why the assistance for blacks alone is justified. Of course it would be a good idea to stop harming them, but what does that have to do with giving them more money or training while not offering it to other races as well? I suggested it had to do with making amends for killing them and, while you answered no, all your comments said yes, since they were related to aborting and killing them. But you mentioned NZ police in Thames, which had nothing to do with African-Americans. Garbled.

  87. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 12:17 pm said:

    [Quinn] – “With the Soros backed Black Lives Matter terrorist organization creating havoc across America”

    [Short] – wants “the Soros-funded trouble-makers exposed and their mischief-making stopped.” Noting that black lives “obviously matter,” he blasted the “Black Lives Matter” movement and said many black people realize the organization is using and exploiting blacks. “Do they think we don’t know this is George Soros?” he wondered, noting that the paid protesters often do not dare to show themselves in black communities because they would be chased out.

    I have never read or seen this or anything like it in the MSM. Quinn:

    It seems conspiracy theorists were right all along. Politicians collude with the media, rig elections, lie to the public, smear their opponents, and break laws without remorse or shame. The American public’s view of career politicians and the smarmy media talking heads is now at an all-time low. The regeneracy is being driven by this warranted mistrust for all things establishment.

    Surely it all must break into the Breaking News department eventually and not just in the US. It is not as if this is Climategate. I suppose it will take an FBI or NYPD or IRS announcement of an actual indictment or arrest to get some attention. That might take a while, if ever.

  88. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 12:50 pm said:

    >”You don’t explain why the assistance for blacks alone is justified”

    Where did I say “blacks alone”? I was quoting Short. He doesn’t say “blacks alone” either, although that could be inferred. Point remains, a proactive preemptive social policy (i.e. resource allocation), as per NZ, is preferable to reactive hair-trigger policing sans social allocation as per Short. Not a cure-all in NZ either obviously.

    Other than that misconstrual I did explain:

    Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 11:22 am said:

    Also, what was said was this in respect to the US:

    [Short] – “not a pence for job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure”

    This is basically New Zealand social policy.



    >”I suggested it had to do with making amends for killing them and, while you answered no, all your comments said yes, since they were related to aborting and killing them.”

    Again you miscontrue. If I answered no then no is no. I said no such thing about “making amends”. You are putting words in my mouth like warmies here. I’ve asked for a careful reread but you refuse to understand what I’ve laid out so i don’t know how I can take this any further.

    >”But you mentioned NZ police in Thames, which had nothing to do with African-Americans.”

    That was in respect to the unnecessary nature of it. I also mentioned unnecessary police shooting in Sydney i.e. this is not just a US phenomenon in a racial-only context. It is just that in the US it comes to prominence when a white officer shoots a black person dead with no justification. That’s where the protests for justice come in. The salt in the wound is the social policy neglect as per Short.

  89. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 1:00 pm said:

    Hillary Cleared As FBI Folds Again: Comey Says “No New Conclusions” After Clinton Email Review


  90. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 1:13 pm said:

    Trump Reacts: “It’s A Rigged System, Hillary Is Protected”; Paul Ryan, RNC, Trump Campaign All Issue Statements On FBI Decision


  91. Richard Treadgold on November 7, 2016 at 3:00 pm said:


    Climb down, old son, you’re sounding like a bad lawyer the way you split hairs.

    Where did I say “blacks alone”?

    It comes from the original quote, which says: “there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks…” The word “alone” is implied because it excludes all others. All I’m asking is that you justify the assistance for blacks you’re calling for (or echoing).

    If I answered no then no is no. I said no such thing about “making amends”.

    As to making amends, my meaning is quite straightforward. When I asked: “So we should help them with education, home ownership and health because we’re shooting them?” the ‘because’ stands for something like ‘make up for’ or ‘recompense’. What else could it mean? What meaning did you take from it? No is no? Read it (what I said) again carefully, because you’re agreeing with me: I said you said no—that the assistance is not justified by the mistreatment and shooting of blacks.

    But it must have everything to do with their killing, because in each of your subsequent comments you refer in turn to “shooting dead”, “murder”, “shoot-to-kill”, “Sydney police … shoot dead”, “NZ police shot dead”, “execution without trial” and “shot dead”. You gave no other reason for blacks needing assistance, which stands in direct contradiction to your “no”.

    So how do you justify your suggestion that blacks are entitled to assistance that others are not? I would have imagined that being killed (and the rest of it) was enough to qualify for special help, but you’re saying it’s not.

    I’m curious. But let’s leave the long, involved nitpicking behind us.

  92. The latest Comey backdown is just staggering

    Social media is in meme heaven:

    e.g ” I decided I didn’t want to die after all”

    No morals integrity or values are left. It’s a race for the bottom now

  93. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 4:05 pm said:

    Shooting to kill: Why police are trained to fire fatal shots – updated January 06, 2015

    CLEVELAND, Ohio — After the shooting death of a 12-year-old Cleveland boy at the hands of a police officer came the familiar question: Why did they have to kill him? Why didn’t they shoot the gun out of his hand or shoot him in the leg?

    Police responded with the familiar refrain: We don’t shoot to maim. If there is a threat that requires lethal force, we shoot to kill.

    But where did that policy come from? In this age of sophisticated weaponry and training techniques, can officers be trained to shoot suspects in a less deadly way?

    Some officers are able to do this. Just six days after Tamir was killed, a seven-year veteran police officer in Akron shot a man in the leg who was holding knives to a woman’s throat.

    Police officers who come face-to-face with armed and dangerous suspects are trained to “shoot to kill,” but experts say that phrase doesn’t account for the complexities of an officer-involved shooting.

    As the Cleveland community grapples with questions about whether the police shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice was justified, the U.S. Department of Justice’s report on the Cleveland Division of Police uncovered a history of failures within the department – especially in how officers use deadly force.

    Justice officials found cases where Cleveland police shot at people who were following their orders and even victims of a crime who were fleeing from danger.

    Though not a part of the Justice Department’s investigation, the Tamir Rice shooting is indicative of Cleveland officers’ habit of turning to deadly force as an initial response rather than a last resort.

    Continues >>>>>

    People have taken to the streets in both Tulsa and Charlotte during the past week, protesting the fatal shootings of two men by police officers in those cities.

    Those incidents, along with other high profile fatal shootings involving police in the past two years, have led some to ask the question – why do the police shoot to kill? Why not try to shoot to wound, instead?

    While the question seems like a sound one considering the cases where unarmed people have been shot by officers, simply put, police officers shoot at people they perceive as posing a threat because that is what they are trained to do in order to end that threat.

    Here’s a quick look at why police don’t shoot to wound instead.

    Do officers really operate under a shoot-to-kill policy?

    Police officers are trained to shoot as many rounds as necessary at the threat they are confronted with until the threat is neutralized – that is, they are trained to fire until the suspect is unable to shoot or in some other way injure the officer, other police or bystanders.

    Continues >>>>>>

    Experts on Why Police Aren’t Trained to Shoot to Wound – Jul 7, 2016

    After two black men were shot and killed be police in less than 48 hours, outraged communities all over the nation are speaking out against police brutality, with many wondering why police aren’t just trained to shoot to wound.

    Unlike in the recent shooting deaths of Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, Wednesday night and Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, early Tuesday, a suspect is generally not in “that close of proximity when a police officer believes it’s necessary to use deadly force,” said Ray Kelly, former police commissioner for the New York Police Department.

    Kelly said it’s too early and that there are too many missing pieces to determine whether the officers in Minnesota and Louisiana were justified in their decision-making to use deadly force. But, “it doesn’t look good,” he said.

    Police Shoot to Stop Life-Threatening Behavior

    Police are trained to stop dangerous, life-threatening or murderous behavior, Kelly said. This holds true for all police departments across the country, he added.


    # # #

    Hard to reconcile “posing a threat” and “dangerous, life-threatening or murderous behavior” and “shoot to kill” with “unarmed” and “12-year old boy” with a toy gun.

    “it doesn’t look good” does strike a chord however. With me anyway.

  94. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 4:13 pm said:

    >”So how do you justify your suggestion that blacks are entitled to assistance that others are not?”

    I made no such suggestion RT. You cannot quote either me or Short me on that can you?

    My case in very much different to what you infer and so is Short’s. It is certainly not what you think it is.

  95. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 4:20 pm said:

    >”The latest Comey backdown is just staggering”

    There will be a huge back-story behind it which may or may not come out but I don’t think we have heard the last of this.

    Meantime every man and his dog will be speculating on what the back-story was. Self preservation has to be right up there and yes, I think we can eliminate morals integrity or values.

  96. Richard Treadgold on November 7, 2016 at 5:57 pm said:


    My case in [sic] very much different to what you infer and so is Short’s. It is certainly not what you think it is.

    Fair enough, I may be mistaken, in which case I’d appreciate a correction. But my substantive point was the suggestion that blacks are entitled to assistance that others are not, to which you say:

    I made no such suggestion RT. You cannot quote either me or Short me [sic] on that can you?

    Yes, I can. It’s in the original quote which I have twice repeated:

    Frankly, African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks live and unborn but not a pence for job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure

    How do you interpret this?

    Short does not refer to other groups, not even in general. Both those being jailed, killed and aborted and those angry at lack of money for job training, housing, school improvements or better infrastructure are specifically named as African-American. That there is money is a given, but it’s being spent on the killing, etc., and not the improvements, therefore the matter hangs on elevating the entitlement to assistance above the perils African-Americans endure. Which is a good and compassionate idea. But he does not say that these are the same privileges given to other groups, nor that other groups are entitled to assistance on the same grounds as African-Americans. Therefore he considers other groups not to be entitled to this assistance.

    Richard, I wonder why you do not see this in the words used, or what you know, and I don’t know, to be assumed in the situation that would contradict this? Thanks.

  97. Richard C (NZ) on November 7, 2016 at 9:19 pm said:

    >”How do you interpret this?”

    I’ve already done that upthread, you can find my previous interpretation more than once but here goes again.


    [Short] – “Frankly, African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks live and unborn but not a pence for job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure”

    In no way equals (what you misconstrue as my “suggestion” but it certainly is not, it’s yours) this:

    [RT] – “blacks are entitled to assistance that others are not”

    There is no suggestion whatsoever by Short (or me) for some sort of exclusive affirmative action that you seem to infer. I don’t know how you get to what you’ve got. My original comment on this with the link has disappeared from the thread as far as I’ve looked. The article I referred to was this:

    Prominent Black Americans, Including Progressives, Loathe Clinton

    There are 2 parts to Short’s statement:

    [1] – “African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks live and unborn”

    What is being referred to by Short is economic resource allocation as I’ve already pointed out i.e. a priority allocation to [1].

    [2] – “but not a pence for job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure”

    Short is highlighting the difference in resource allocation priorities between [1] and [2] as he sees it. In [2] there is an obvious lack of resource allocation for those activities, which in Short’s (very loose) opinion is”not a pence”, relative to [1]. I suspect if pushed he would couch that differently (he’s a PhD). Short makes no racial categorization as to who the “job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure” would be for. It seems to me to be inclusive i.e. how can “improvements in schools” be African American only unless there is either institutional segregation or de facto segregation in schools? The former outlawed but the latter in place as follows.

    From a quick search. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Supreme Court outlawed segregated public education facilities for blacks and whites at the state level. Ten years later, more than 75% of the school districts remained segregated, but Wikipedia says this in Segregation:

    Despite all the legal changes that have taken place since the 1940s and especially in the 1960s (see Desegregation), the United States remains, to some degree, a segregated society, with housing patterns [but see Fair Housing Act below], school enrollment, church membership, employment opportunities, and even college admissions all reflecting significant de facto segregation.

    And in Desegregation:

    Legislation finally passed the bill [Fair Housing Act] and was signed into law on April 11, 1968, by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

    In 1948, President Harry S. Truman’s Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II

    So if there actually is de facto segregation in respect to schools there should be appropriate and fair resource allocation to them whatever the racial divide. But Short is referring specifically not to school resourcing in general but to ‘improvements to schools” which could be lack of maintenance or modernization or something similar. And Short does not refer specifically to de facto segregated schools, just “schools” which could be either segregated, desegregated multi-racial, or both.

    Even if he is referring specifically to de facto segregated African American only schools (which he does not), no money for “improvements to schools” is certainly not a case of “blacks are entitled to assistance that others are not”. Your miss-statement of the case I’ve laid out quoting Short directly falls apart here RT.

    I can’t find anything on “infrastructure” specifically but I can’t think of any infrastructural segregation de facto or otherwise to address (e.g. rail/bus transport, toilets, essential services, etc). In the case of infrastructure Short’s statement must be inclusive i.e. desegregated. Again, your miss-statement falls apart on this too RT.

  98. Richard C (NZ) on November 8, 2016 at 9:44 am said:

    “I Just Lost All Faith In Our Deeply Corrupt Legal System And In The Rule Of Law In The US”

    by Michael Snyder [Attorney]


    The choice before the American people is very simple. Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician to ever run for the presidency, and the extremely long laundry list of Clinton scandals and crimes has been well documented over the past three decades.

    The voters know exactly what they are getting with her. And if they choose her anyway despite all of the things that have been revealed, that means that America is willingly choosing lawlessness.

    # # #

    Or at least those who vote for Clinton are willingly choosing lawlessness, which with the institution of law still in place means the corruption of law in order to obtain a state of lawlessness at the top level.

    In some ways that exercise of free will might be the best lesson for those voters in the end, assuming Hillary wins. Cold comfort for everyone else in the US but it will quite a spectacle. I just hope it doesn’t involve nuclear fallout.

    But a spectacle whoever wins as I see it. It’s already been that and more.

  99. Richard Treadgold on November 8, 2016 at 11:39 am said:

    You’ve broken the sentence, RC, destroying its meaning. If I simplify the sentence and put it back together it may be easier to appreciate what it’s saying:

    Precis: “Blacks are angry that there is money to kill them but no financial assistance.”

    So the lack of assistance makes blacks angry. Other groups are not mentioned, so we don’t know whether there is assistance for them or not, and they’re clearly not the focus of black anger. You say:

    Short makes no racial categorization as to who the “job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure” would be for.

    But this is at best naive and at worst misleading—for the passage clearly says blacks are angry at the lack of assistance, and of course they’re not angry on behalf of other groups that get no assistance, because no other groups are mentioned.

    You’re making this hard work but the words are plain. I don’t know what you’re defending but I’m not attacking, I’m asking. The passage clearly says blacks are angry about not getting financial assistance; I’m asking why they need it.

    There’s probably no need to carry on with this, for I have no idea what effect it might have on the presidential election.

  100. Richard C (NZ) on November 8, 2016 at 12:50 pm said:

    >Precis: “Blacks are angry that there is money to kill them”

    Correct, but why not just defer to the original? – “African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, and abort Blacks live and unborn”

    >”but no financial assistance.”

    Short does NOT state “assistance”. Stop making stuff up and stick with what he actually said – “but not a pence for job training, affordable housing, improvements in schools and infrastructure”. These are public social policy initiatives with no tag to anyone in particular by Short. As I’ve alluded before, he could be elucidating NZ social policy. Obviously if that resource allocation is not in place no-one benefits – black white pink or purple.

    The decrepit state of US infrastructure is a national issue (for a long time now) and an election issue:

    Falling apart: America’s neglected infrastructure

    The one thing Trump and Clinton agree on is infrastructure

    How can you possibly say to the effect that Short wants infrastructure spending specifically for blacks? He says nothing of that. Short (and Clinton, and Trump) are calling for “improvements in …… infrastructure” (Short) irrespective of who for or who uses it. I don’t see racial segregation on bridges, roads, sewerage, public transport etc in 2017.

    >”So the lack of assistance makes blacks angry”

    Incorrect as above and nothing in [2] to support your contention. They are angry at the killing of blacks [1] and angry over the priority given to killing blacks over other social initiatives [2] such as infrastructure above. Rundown schools and infrastructure is certainly not a black-only problem in the US. It is a problem common to everyone. Both Clinton and Trump see that in respect to infrastructure at least.

    >”the passage clearly says blacks are angry at the lack of assistance”

    Incorrect as immediately above and all previous. The anger is stated in [1] in respect to killing and in respect to the priority of resource allocation (money) to [1] over [2] by the use of the conjunction “but”. There is no statement whatsoever in [2] in respect to either anger or assistance.

    Short is simply making a stark comparison of resources directed to killing blacks in preference to normal social policy irrespective of colour which can easily be seen in NZ social policy statements that almost map exactly onto [2].

  101. Richard Treadgold on November 8, 2016 at 1:40 pm said:

    Richard Cumming,

    Stop making stuff up and stick with what he actually said

    That is simply rude; your manners are appalling. You obstruct these discussions by obstinately refusing to acknowledge what I’m talking about. I said plainly I would simplify the original sentence, so when I say “but no financial assistance” it replaces the phrase used by Short. It’s a perfectly good alternative for the sake of argument and it’s not hard to understand, yet you churlishly instruct me to “stop making stuff up.”

    You refuse to see that the original sentence sets out in black and white that “… African Americans are angry that there is unlimited money to jail, kill, [etc.] but not a pence for [assistance of various kinds].” The conjunction “but” joins those two phrases irrevocably together and they must be considered together, yet you again display a breath-taking pig-headedness I will no longer tolerate.

    Your disrespect and your blinkered, belligerent quarrelling are disgraceful. You may leave.

  102. Richard C (NZ) on November 8, 2016 at 1:50 pm said:

    >”normal social policy irrespective of colour which can easily be seen in NZ social policy statements that almost map exactly onto [2].”

    Turns out more than “almost”, [2] maps exactly onto the NZ 2016 Budget.

    [2] – “job training (1), affordable housing (2), improvements in schools (3) and infrastructure (4)”

    Bill English 26 May, 2016 Budget 2016: Overview

    1) $257 million in more tertiary education and apprenticeship programmes, particularly in science, engineering and agriculture.

    2) Housing The Budget provides extra funding for housing, including:
    $200 million for at least 750 more places for individuals and families with the most pressing housing needs, as well as meeting the costs of rising rents.
    $42 million will support 3,000 emergency housing places a year and establish a new emergency housing Special Needs Grant.
    $36 million to ensure more families live in warmer, drier and healthier homes.
    A further $100 million is provided to free up surplus Crown land for housing developments in Auckland. In addition, the Government will soon issue a National Policy Statement on Urban Development, to direct councils to allow more housing development.

    3) and 4) A $2.1 billion infrastructure package ……….includes:
    Education – $883 million to deliver 480 new classrooms, nine new schools, two school expansions and the relocation and rebuilding of three schools and a Kura. This includes $168 million for the Christchurch schools rebuild programme.
    Transport – $115 million for the Accelerated Regional Roading Programme for projects in Gisborne, Marlborough and Taranaki, as well as $190 million to support KiwiRail.
    Tourism – additional funding for tourism infrastructure. This includes $25 million to upgrade the New Zealand Cycle Trail, and $12 million to help communities build smaller-scale infrastructure projects, like restrooms and carparks.
    Inland Revenue – $857 million for Inland Revenue’s new tax administration system, replacing one that is a quarter of a century old.

  103. Richard C (NZ) on November 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm said:

    >”it [inferred statement – NOT original] replaces the phrase used by Short. It’s a perfectly good alternative for the sake of argument ”

    I’m amazed you are saying this RT. This is exactly the warmy tactic employed by the likes of Simon and Dennis in the climate debate here i.e. don’t defer to the original but make up something else and present that as a “perfectly good alternative” but actually it misconstrues, miss-states, misrepresents and is factually incorrect.

    You stoop very low when you resort to those debating tactics Richard.

  104. Richard Treadgold on November 8, 2016 at 3:07 pm said:

    “I’m amazed you are saying this RT. This is exactly the warmy tactic…”

    Really amazed? You say you have no idea why I’m saying it, but I explained why. I simplified the original to show how the first bit connects with the last bit. That makes me just like the warmies? How can you say the blacks aren’t angry when the passage says they’re angry?

    The anger is stated in [1] in respect to killing and in respect to the priority of resource allocation (money) to [1] over [2] by the use of the conjunction “but”.

    This statement is ungrammatical to the point of illiteracy.

    There is no statement whatsoever in [2] in respect to either anger or assistance.

    But that’s exactly why the word “but” is used to join the two parts together, so we know the anger is connected with the lack of affordable housing, etc. Do you see that? You acknowledge the two parts are joined with “but” but you deny they’re connected, which is illogical. You should ask yourself why they’re joined in the first place.

    You’re beyond assistance. Go away.

  105. Time out Richards please

    Be nice to each other. we live in troubling times, and don’t need more enemies

  106. Richard Treadgold on November 8, 2016 at 5:02 pm said:

    Gentle comments, Andy, thanks.

  107. Maggy Wassilieff on November 8, 2016 at 5:42 pm said:

    Tomorrow the US Presidential Election will be done and dusted BUT the climate will carry on changing.

  108. Richard Treadgold on November 8, 2016 at 5:59 pm said:

    Conjunctions are indeed useful to describe reality. The current climate of change will keep us occupied in observing and describing it for a while yet. Thanks, Maggy.

  109. Not done and dusted if the result is close and against Trump
    There have been so many accusations of vote rigging that this might drag on

    Think GW Bush vs Gore

  110. I have also predicted that, whichever way the election goes, there will be bloodshed

    It would appear to be brewing already


  111. NYT now giving Trump 59% chance of winning the Presidency

  112. 5 people shot and in critical condition at anti-Trump protest


    Predicted, observed, measured

Comment navigation


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation