The Economy Didn't Improve, It's A Mess & When It Collapses It Will Be D...

World Affairs Brief, November 11, 2016 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief ( This Week’s Analysis: Trump Victory Shocks the World Manipulating the Election World Reactions to Trump’s Win Clinton Backers Sore Losers Can Trump Live Up to His Promises? Preparedness Tip: Prep Your Bicycle TRUMP VICTORY SHOCKS THE WORLD The election of Donald Trump to become president of the United States is perhaps the biggest political upset in history—not because other races haven’t been close, but because the powerful establishment pulled out all the stops, including outright computer vote fraud, to defeat Trump and he still won. After living through one political defeat after another for the last fifty years of adulthood, it was hard to believe my eyes as it unfolded. I witnessed leftist TV journalists across the mainstream media go from upbeat, animated discussions about the surprising early election returns showing a Trump lead to outright shock and disbelief as Trump continued to win in huge swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa. Florida went for Trump and he was even ahead in Michigan. All these were states that were going to turn the tide for Clinton, but it never happened. This week I’ll explain how Trump defied the pollsters, the pundits, and the media to send Hillary packing for good. The last wisp of hope for pro-Clinton media talking heads was when the Left-wing strongholds on the West coast (CA, OR, and WA) went for Clinton, putting her briefly ahead in electoral votes. But that lead was short lived as Trump started to win big swing states like Florida and Ohio. Something even more interesting happened as Trump started to show a lead in Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Any two of those states going for Trump would put him over the magic 270 electoral votes to win. All through the night, based on the accuracy of exit polls, networks were projecting wins for either Clinton or Trump with as little as 0% of the vote counted, but suddenly nobody was projecting a win in Pennsylvania with even 99% of the vote counted and with Trump in the lead. The Associated Press finally announced that PA was going for Trump, but none of the other networks followed. Then the AP retracted its projection. What was going on was that none of these biased networks wanted to be the first to announce a Trump victory. With 20 electoral votes, a PA win for Trump, in combination with Wisconsin, Arizona or Michigan would have made Trump president, and none of the networks wanted to be the first to announce it. Finally, they couldn’t hold it back any longer and both PA and WI were called for Trump. Game over. I’ll analyze later why the polls were so wrong, but let’s look at the telling results of the exit polls, which help explain what really happened at the polls on Tuesday. The Washington Post filed this detailed report (excerpts): 1. Trump won the white vote by a record margin: In 1984, Ronald Reagan won the white vote by 20 points on his way to a 525 electoral vote smashing of Walter Mondale. Mitt Romney matched that 20-point victory in 2012 while losing relatively convincingly to President Obama. On Tuesday, Trump.. won the white vote 58 percent to 37 percent. This is important even though, as the Post points out, The white vote also continued its decline as a percentage of the overall voter pool. In 1984, whites made up 86 percent of the total electorate. That number was 72 percent in 2012. And 70 percent in 2016. [We haven’t reached the point where Democrat-leaning minorities outvote the majority, but that is where the immigration invasion, both legal and illegal is leading us.] 2. There was no surge of female voters [for Clinton]: For all of the talk that Trump's comments about women — and the allegations of sexual assault made against him by a dozen women — would mean historic turnout among female voters (and a historic margin of defeat for Trump), it simply never materialized. [And many women turned out and supported Trump.] Women made up 52 percent of the overall electorate in 2016 — down from 53 percent in 2012. 3. There was no surge of Latino voters: Trump built his campaign on a pledge to build a wall on our Southern border and make Mexico pay for it. He suggested during the campaign that a judge of Mexican descent might not be able to rule fairly in a case involving Trump University. He said that Mexico was sending “criminals” and “rapists” to the United States. All of that led to predictions of historically high Hispanic turnout, with many predicting that 2016 would be the election that Latinos emerge as the electoral force that their population numbers suggest they should be. It just didn't happen. [In fact, more Latinos and Blacks than expected actually voted for Trump.] 4. Education level mattered hugely in your vote choice: In 2012, Obama won both voters who had graduated from college and those who hadn't; he took 50 percent among the former group and 51 percent among the latter. This time around, there was a far bigger divide. Clinton won voters with a college degree 52 percent to 43 percent. Trump won voters without a college degree by eight points. [More than anything, this is more proof of the effectiveness of the one-sided Left/liberal indoctrination on politics, social issues and evolution that universities uniformly impose on students—rather than a reflection of smarts.] 5. Trump did better with white evangelicals than Romney: Trump didn't do much to court white evangelical voters. And his personal story — three marriages, two divorces — doesn't seem like one that many evangelicals could or would identify with. But Trump actually did better among white evangelicals than Romney had in 2012; Trump won 81 percent of “white evangelical or white born-again Christians” while Romney took 78 percent. (White evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate in both elections.) One theory is that as a Mormon, Romney was always viewed skeptically by evangelical whites... Or maybe Trump's antiabortion stance — and Clinton's support of abortion rights — was enough. The next one is important because pollsters are excusing their “failure” to detect the Trump win because of the “silent Trump support” among people who were never in their databases or voter rolls. But this shows that wasn’t really true. 6. Trump didn't bring lots of new voters to the process: Just 10 percent of voters said that the 2016 election was their first time voting. Of that group, Clinton won 56 percent to 40 percent over Trump. Of course, new voters often overlap with younger voters who are eligible to vote for the first time; Clinton won among 18- to 24-year-olds by 21 points. 7. The economy was the big issue — and Clinton won it: A majority (52 percent) of voters said the economy was the most important issue facing the country... Among those economy voters, Clinton beat Trump by 10 points. [ This is a distorted conclusion. The economy wasn’t the big issue. There were 3 other choices on the list given to voters and “Desire for real change” wasn’t one of them. In a proper polling analysis, you can’t say Clinton beat Trump on the economy unless everyone had to respond to that issue alone.] But the biggest finding of all from the exit polls was that people “weren't voting on issues. Like, at all.” They simply wanted a major change, as I indicated above: 8. This was a change election. And Trump was the change candidate: Provided with four candidate qualities and asked which mattered most to their vote, almost 4 in 10 (39 percent) said a candidate who “can bring needed change." Among those change voters, Trump took 83 percent of the vote to just 14 percent for Clinton. The desire for change appears to be at the root of the choice lots and lots of voters made. And Trump was change while Clinton was more of the same. Other polling questions determined that another big factor causing people to vote against Clinton was the increase in premiums in Obamacare. Coincidentally, many of the premium notices came in the mail as people were filling out their vote by mail ballots. Exit polling also showed that Hillary’s email scandal did have an effect on undercutting people’s trust. One commentator told the audience the day after election, that James Comey’s exonerating of Hillary in the email scandal convinced more people that “the system is rigged” than anything. I think that is true. When Comey came out yet again a few days before the election and exonerated her a second time on the Huma Abedin emails, that only confirmed he was a political hack. The entire night’s coverage was filled with irony. Both candidates watched the election in New York City about three blocks from each other. Trump, not expecting to win, went low key. He hired a small hotel ballroom that held a few hundred people. Clinton, in contrast, went all out. She hired the cavernous Javits Center, and had thousands on hand expecting a huge victory party. Strangely, a few days prior, she cancelled a very expensive fireworks display that was going to help celebrate her victory. Perhaps she had access to more realistic internal polling numbers. As the mood at Trump headquarters got slowly more enthusiastic (attendees weren’t expecting to win either), and the mood at the Clinton bash turned fearful and then depressing until it became downright shocking to attendees. TV commentators began to finally realize their worst nightmare was happening—and they had to keep reporting on it. As the night wore on and it looked more likely that Clinton was going to lose, the networks explained a big problem developing at the Javits Center. The Clinton campaign had only until 2AM to occupy the arena since the National Association of Broadcasters was coming in at 8AM the next morning. With no victory in sight, they had to do something with all these people standing in front of an empty stage. Rather than appear herself, Clinton sent campaign manager John Podesta over to say “nothing was going to be determined tonight” and that Clinton would address everyone tomorrow, and for all to go home. The election was in the bag for Trump half an hour later, so Hillary was saved from having to appear before all her supporters and admit defeat on air. She did, however, call Trump on the telephone and concede the election. Trump then went from Trump Tower over to the hotel venue to make his acceptance speech which, to the relief of all his supporters, was very “presidential” in tone. I thought it was too conciliatory to Hillary. In the meantime, Hillary was having a major meltdown. She couldn’t believe this “buffoon” Trump, who she had vilified as unfit to rule, had robbed her of what she deemed was her rightful place as head of the most powerful and globalist-controlled country in the world. The most telling account of this meltdown came from Ed Klein, editor of NY Magazine and a certified establishment liberal as he was interviewed on the Steve Malzberg show. Malzberg asked Klein if we’ve seen the last of Hillary (I think she’s finished), and how she reacted to the loss to Trump: Klein:“Here’s what I know. About 6:30 this morning she called an old friend. She was crying uncontrollably. Her friend (her female friend from way, way back) said it was even hard to understand what she was saying, she was crying so hard. Eventually…she was blaming James Comey and the president of the United States for not doing enough.”… Malzberg was shocked. How could Comey be responsible after having failed to recommend prosecution over the email scandal? …Hillary didn’t mean Obama didn’t campaign hard enough for her. Hillary thought Obama didn’t do enough within the realm of the FBI investigation.” Klein ended with something classic: “With the Clintons, especially with Hillary, It’s never her fault.” That’s because she is used to having all her sins and weaknesses covered up by the PTB. That’s what happens when someone as corrupt as Hillary Clinton gets used to living under the de-facto immunity provided by the great conspiracy. She couldn’t handle it and became utterly inconsolable at having that system fail to give her what she wanted in the end. Let me be clear. The PTB’s failure to elect Clinton wasn’t for lack of trying. It simply was because the anger of almost half of the American public against the establishment overcame the combination of media bias, computer election fraud, and hand holding of minority voters by the Clinton ground game. Even the judiciary’s refusal to enforce proper ID at the polls didn’t help. Once again there were a few false conspiracies promoted on the net to explain what happened. Alex Jones had Steve Pieczenik on again with Roger Stone this week. He continues to maintain that there is a secret coup by he and other intelligence professionals that defeated Hillary Clinton. Last week I explained why this can’t be true, and wasn’t. In addition, the multiple claims by those pushing to coup idea, that NYPD insiders were going to release the damaging emails from Abedin’s computer if Comey didn’t, never materialized. Jones also claimed that he was informed over the weekend from his sources that Trump was approached by people from high level deep state that offered to "let" him win if he'd compromise on a couple things and he told them “no.” Although Alex is sincere, once you start to listen to claimed insider sources like Pieczenik, you become susceptible to other disinformation experts that play on your willingness to listen to these types of claims. I don’t listen to claims I can’t check out or corroborate with my long experience in this fight. As I have said before, no one is privy to what goes on inside “deep state” conspiratorial circles or is allowed to spill the beans to patriots like Alex Jones without being caught. NSA spying is universal and the conspiracy is ruthless about leakers. Second, the latter story about offering Trump a last minute deal is impossible on its face simply because even the conspiracy can’t reverse all the election rigging and media bias that has been going on for months, in the last few days before the election. The US election is too decentralized to change manipulation in the last two days even from behind the scenes. Lastly, there was a story from the “Denver Guardian” on Nov. 5 with the headline, “FBI AGENT SUSPECTED IN HILLARY EMAIL LEAKS FOUND DEAD IN APPARENT MURDER-SUICIDE.” The Denver Post did a little research and found out that, The only problem is that there is no such thing as “The Denver Guardian” and the news story it “reported” never happened. Let’s run down the list of red flags: The domain was first registered in July 2016 and is hosted by GoDaddy. This story is the only story showing up under the “News” section and all other sections are turning up errors. There is no Walkerville, Maryland. There is a Walkersville, Maryland, but the city does not have a police department, making the quote from “Walkerville Police Chief Pat Frederick” null and void. The address listed for the newsroom is a tree in a parking lot next to a vacant bank building on Colfax. So, be very careful to check out salacious stories that tend to confirm truth. Disinformation experts love to put out false but enticing claims that can then make true conspiracies look foolish. The internet is full of disinformation sites like EU Times, Superstation95 and this new DenverGuardian. More are appearing all the time, so do a little checking before forwarding stories. Also, I never trust stories or essays aimed at conservatives that come unattributed to any person, encouraging others to “pass it on.” There is no reason not to put a name to these letters, and they usually contain a lot of truth but some crucial errors that will get you discredited. MANIPULATING THE ELECTION I’ve received not a few emails from subscribers asking, “How could Trump possibly have won given the amount of vote fraud going on?” Another version was, “The margin between Trump and Clinton in several states was small enough that it seems that the voting machines could have flipped enough votes to her for her to win with no one being the wiser. So how could the PTB allow this to happen?” I think the answer to that is that Trump’s final margin of victory exceeded the percentage of vote fraud that the manipulators dared to use. The reason for that limitation is that vote fraud has to be limited to a few percentage points lest the fraud becomes obvious by statistical analysis of exit polls. Fraud probably accounted for no more than 3%, and that wasn’t enough to counter the surge in vote for Trump. Computer Voting Machine Fraud: There were reports coming in from many parts of the country documenting the flipping of votes from Trump to Clinton. Here’s a link to a typical example. I’ve summarized below a pattern of manipulation we can see from this type of computer vote flipping: 1) All examples were changing Republican votes to Democratic, never the other way around. 2) The most common machine vote flip was to specific change from a vote for Trump to Hillary. 3) All these results happened in conservative areas of voting–not in areas where Hillary was expected to win handily. 4) Vote flipping was only happening in 1 or 2 out of every 10 machines. 5) Most people were catching the errors and calling vote officials to correct the machines. The first 4 points above prove that this can only be programming manipulation—not random errors. What is also noteworthy, which you can see in the Pennsylvania news report above, is that election and media officials never drew the conclusion that machines had been tampered with as proof of vote fraud. Not a single official would even hint that vote fraud was a possibility. That shows some pre-conditioning and bias to defend the superficial “integrity” of the election process. All they could talk about is how the machines were either taken off line or recalibrated to fix the problem. Recalibrating would, of course, take the machine back to its original state and erase the manipulating code. There is also the potential of vote tally manipulation after voting is complete. Since vote flipping shows up on the screen, where most people catch the error, I think this type of fraud is on the way out. Changing the tally at the end of the process is less visible and can only be detected by a detailed audit of all the vote receipts, which is never done. That may be the reason why we’ve seen no call by the Clinton campaign for any recounts, even in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania where the margin of victory for Trump was so slim. I suspect that an audit would show significant vote fraud in favor of Clinton, and the PTB don’t want any evidence manipulation of voting computers discovered. The coverup would be messy. I also suspect that the delay in reporting highly democratic areas in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was to let vote tally officials time to decide if they could get away with fudging the tally in these areas where it wouldn’t arouse suspicion if Clinton had an even bigger lead. And, since the polls gave Clinton a projected lead before the election, this kind of fraud wouldn’t seem out of line with polling data. Ultimately, they may have decided against it for a couple of other reasons: 1) Trump was winning too many other swing states and they’d have to manipulate the end tally of more than one state, which increases the risk of discovery and collusion. 2) Trump was increasing his lead slightly all those swing states even as the votes counted got close to 100%. So, a sudden surge by Clinton to top Trump would force Trump to call for a recount, which might expose the final tally manipulation. Keep in mind that no major recount has ever been allowed since electronic voting machines have been in place. Computer audits have taken place, and are mandated by law in some locations. And, all have shown computer manipulation of the count, but election officials wave it off as an error, change the final tally to match the computer’s addition, and go on as if everything is OK. Overall, I would say the Democratic ground game is at least as effective as computer vote flipping in permanently increasing Democratic voters. Helping minorities fill out voter registration papers, and picking them up and transporting them to the polls accounts for many hundreds of thousands of additional votes in swing states where minorities are a high percentage of the population. They don’t bother to do this in areas where conservatives are a majority. It is also apparent that millions of Hispanic illegals vote each year. In fact, this year Obama committed an impeachable offense by encouraging illegals to vote—telling them that their fears of being deported or being rejected at the polls are unfounded, as reported. Obama took time to be interviewed on Friday by a Latino Youtube host. “Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, um, citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?” asked host Gina Rodriguez on MiTu, a program on and Facebook. “Not true,” Obama replied. President Barack Obama’s Nov. 4 suggestion that voting by illegal aliens in the 2016 presidential election will not be investigated is “absolutely shocking,” says the former Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. Neil Cavuto [in a separate interview] turned to Brewer for her take on Obama’s bizarre statement. “I can’t believe how blithely the President of the United States, the keeper of our Constitution, and all the rights that come with it, including the right to vote, legal citizens having the right to vote, blithely dismissing that,” Cavuto said. [And that’s the impeachable offense.] “Shocking. Absolutely shocking,” Brewer said. “He should have absolutely set her straight that if you’re not a citizen, you don’t get to vote. And just because you’re in our country ‘undocumented,’ you’re not a citizen. They want to blur the lines.” Media Bias: Traditionally, the media is quick to inform people who the “top candidates” are for the presidency as the first step in manipulating public opinion. In the process they exclude those they don’t want to run. Both Romney and Trump defied that system by having enough money and notoriety to inject themselves into the race in spite of the media filtering process. But once in this race the media had to deal with Trump’s rash comments which were a magnet for media coverage. Personally, I don’t think Trump did this on purpose, as a calculated move. I’m convinced it’s just part of his personality. He’s brash and impulsive and doesn’t have the mental control skills to restrain himself when speaking off the cuff. At first the media loved it because it gave them an opportunity to bash Trump and embarrass any conservative who took similar positions to Trump’s imprecise way of representing the issues. But after it became apparent that Trump’s popularity increased the more the media attacked him, they were stuck. Trump was now a major force to be reckoned with. Inevitably, their only weapon was to keep up the attacks on Trump as he continued to hand them ammunition every time he opened his mouth. But here’s the key question: How can conservatives complain about media bias when they themselves are embarrassed by much of what Trump says, and especially his explicit comments about groping women, as the Access Hollywood tapes exposed? Wasn’t the media justified in being critical of Trump? Yes they were, but that’s not the issue when it comes to bias. There was an easily discernable difference between how they treated Trump’s negative issues versus those of Hillary Clinton. 1) They turned Trump’s verbal gaffs into a drumbeat, repeating them over and over again. There was no drumbeat over Hillary Clinton’s Foundation corruption or the email scandal, despite the big opportunity for analysis that it presented. In fact, whenever they would mention these problems, they would interview someone who downplayed them or excused them. 2) The media when to great lengths to search out and broadcast the minutest details of Trump’s indiscretions. They had paid staffers calling every contestant involved in Trump’s Miss Universe pageant to find any who had a negative experience with Trump. However, when talking about Hillary’s Foundation corruption, they would avoid even a detailed recitation of the charges. They also failed to interview former intelligence officials who were outraged by Hillary’s use of a private email server for classified messages. They would never try to track down, let alone mention, the credible evidence of Bill’s predation on women, nor give air time to one of Bill Clinton’s former mistresses who testified that Bill told her directly about Hillary’s use of cocaine and her preference for women sexual partners. 3) The media selectively interviewed Republican women who were uniformly outraged by Trump’s behavior and broadcast their comments. But moral outrage is easy to showcase in a one sided manner if you don’t also present those women with equivalent opportunities to express moral outrage over Clinton’s misconduct. They never search out Democratic women who might be outraged by Hillary’s use of cocaine, being a lesbian, or using “pay to play” tactics to enrich her Foundation while Sec. of State. Sadly, most Democratic women probably would be tolerant of the lesbian charges, being politically correct. All of these are indications of heavy media bias toward Hillary Clinton. The day after the election Judy Woodruff of NPR’s News Hour brought on air a cross section of commentators to discuss how Trump won the election. J D Vance, a writer who specializes in white, working class Americans and how they feel disrespected, started off with a blockbuster—that this sector of America feels vindicated by Trump, in that they knew the “media is corrupt and they were lying about the outcome of the election, and Donald Trump really proved them right... So I think there should be some soul searching among the press who predicted that Trump would lose handily; and of course that didn’t happen... that corrodes some of the trust that people back home have in the media.” Woodruff excused the media by saying they were just following the polls, which they don’t produce. There was a brief discussion about whether the media was looking for data to affirm their liberal bias. In the next segment she decided to try and get 3 commentators to help out by addressing whether or not the media was “lying” as JD Vance had suggested. Margaret Sullivan of the Washington Post was quick to deny there was any lying or intent to deceive, as would be expected from that very biased mainstream paper –“nothing so venal,” she said. My response would be that manipulation and deception can be more subtle than outright lying, but it’s still manipulation. One of those invited to participate was Steve Deace, a prominent conservative talk show host from Iowa. He’s been on before because he’s anti-Trump, but this time he turned the tables on the News Hour. Co-host Hari Sreenivasan asked him “how much of this is a disconnect between those who are writing the stories and those out there living them in middle America?” “I think there is a massive disconnect” “How many people in the news room right here now, at PBS, how many are Pro-Life? How many go to church or to mass at least once a week? How many voted for Trump? There’s a lot of talk of diversity nowadays, but there’s a huge lack of ideological diversity in our newsrooms. And I think that’s creating a massive disconnect, nationwide.” You could tell his questions hit home, as Judy and Hari had no comeback. Woodruff was noticeable shaken by the clarity of the logic and did not try to deny that they were all anti-Trump. She stammered on about how we try to be neutral and present both sides, but his point was clear. When you are biased to this degree, you can’t present both sides in a balanced way. Polling Bias: Pollsters are scrambling to explain away how all the mainstream pollsters got it wrong. The details just how bad the polling was: Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, had long said the polls were biased against him. His claims — dismissed and mocked by the experts — turned out to be true. Going into Election Day, a strong majority of pollsters and election modelers forecast that Democrat Hillary Clinton would coast to victory, with many predicting she would sweep the battlegrounds and win north of 300 electoral votes. The final University of Virginia Center for Politics model had Clinton winning 322 electoral votes to 216 for Trump, with Clinton winning Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all states that she lost. Liberals lashed out at data guru Nate Silver for giving Trump a 35 percent chance of victory heading into Election Day, claiming he was putting his thumb on the scale for Trump by making the race appear closer than it was. Of the 11 national polls to be released in the final week of the race, only two — a Los Angeles Times/USC survey and one from IBD/TIPP — showed Trump with the lead. The L.A. Times survey was criticized as “experimental” by industry experts for polling the same pool of people and for the way it weighted black voters. But for the second consecutive presidential cycle, the L.A. Times and IBD/TIPP surveys were among the most accurate, making them the gold standard going forward. The rest of the polls showed Clinton with leads of between 2 and 6 points, boosting the Democrat to a 3.3-point national lead in the RealClearPolitics average. And the battleground data was just as biased against Trump. There were no surveys released this year from Wisconsin that showed Trump with a lead. In Michigan and Pennsylvania, deep blue states the GOP candidate has not won in decades, polls showed the race tightening in the home stretch, but only one poll, from Trafalgar Group, showed Trump with the lead. Election modelers declined to flip either state into Trump’s column, even as the Clinton campaign rushed furiously to defend those states in the final days of the election [showing she knew there were problems]. And Trump won North Carolina by nearly 4 points, despite polls showing a toss-up there. But state after state told the same story for Trump and Clinton. White working-class voters — the silent majority that Trump said was being underestimated by pollsters — swarmed for him on Election Day, particularly in the Rust Belt states, and helped him beat the polls. Clinton could not turn out women, or the Obama coalition of minorities and young voters, in the same numbers to keep pace. Pollster John Zogby believes that many in the industry weighted their polls too heavily in favor of Democrats, pointing to polls that had an 8- to 9-point advantage for the party, when it should have been in the 4- to 5-point range, he said. There’s a reason for all this emphasis on weighting. The polling industry has become very crowded and competitive leading to cost cutting measures—meaning using less people and more computer driven “robocalling.” Also, the number of people accessible to pollsters has dwindled dramatically with the increasing number of people with cellphones (where robocalls are prohibited) as opposed to landlines where that is allowed. It’s just too expensive to have phone banks do a lot of telephone polling, so pollsters take the dwindling number of existing respondents and multiple their responses to approximate what they think exists among society. That’s called weighting. This may explain why even the Trump pollsters got it wrong. However, as pollsters’ databases age, they become more inaccurate and less representative of what’s real. Coupled with the fact that pollsters already play tricks with weighting to fudge the numbers toward the Left, they can easily get it wrong. Many pollsters excused their performance by saying that millions of Trump voters were “silent” meaning not in their database. That may be true, but that is the pollster’s own fault since they long ago stopped spending serious money on broadening those limited databases. One of the most serious examples of manipulated polling happened in Utah. The week prior to the election, Utah polls were saying that Evan McMullin, (the Romney and establishment choice to run an independent spoiler campaign against Trump) was nearly even with Trump (22% to 23%). It was all the rage to anticipate how McMullin was going to deny Trump the electoral college majority and throw the race to the House of Representatives, who would pick McMullin. Nonsense. Trump ended up with almost half the vote, and McMullin got his predicted 23%. How could the polls be right on about McMullin’s numbers and be off by 25 points with Trump? -Pure manipulation. Third Party effects: With so much dissatisfaction with both Trump and Clinton, third party candidates on both the Left and Right could have had a large effect. It turns out they didn’t. While support for the quasi Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and his globalist VP William Weld was as high as 10% when Trump grabbed the nomination, their final support level came in at only 3.4%. In like manner Jill Stein of the Leftist Green party claimed 5% support to start but ended up with slightly less than 1%. But that’s not the entire story. In think that’s because the initial outrage against Trump’s tone gave way to heightened fears about living under a Hillary regime. People wanted to see her defeated more than stand on principle. However, combined totals for both third party candidates did cost Trump and Clinton votes in 4 battleground states as MSNBC noted, In Florida, Hillary Clinton lost by about 1.4% of the vote – but if Jill Stein’s supporters and half of Gary Johnson’s backers had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Clinton lost by about 1.1% of the vote – but if Jill Stein’s supporters and half of Gary Johnson’s backers had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state. In Wisconsin, Clinton lost by about 1% of the vote – but if Stein’s supporters had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state. In Michigan, Clinton appears to be on track to lose by about 0.3% of the vote – but if half of Stein’s supporters had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state. Those are big assumptions. I’m not at all inclined to think that 50% of libertarians would have countenanced Hillary Clinton. WORLD REACTIONS One German newspaper screamed “black day” for America in electing Trump. Other predictable globalist lackeys such as Socialist president Hollande in France condemned the Trump victory. UK PM Theresa May was the exception—being careful about keeping up appearances as a converted pro-Brexit conservative, which she is not. Other anti-EU political parties were ecstatic with the results, seeing his victory as further support for a growing dissatisfaction with globalism worldwide. The leader of the National Front in France, Marie LaPen said a Trump victory gives hope to nationalist parties in Europe. UK Independent party leader Nigel Farage praised Trump’s election which gives his party a boost as well. The Russian Parliament applauded Trump’s win, hoping that Trump will resist the neocon calls for painting Russia as the human rights violator in Syria. Syrian President Assad was hopeful that Trump will break with the neocons attacking his government, and somehow lessen support for the rebels. Perhaps the biggest plus for Trump was the praise received by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu who sees the Trump victory as an end to the Obama push for a Palestinian state. He’s probably right. Trump’s first phone call as president-elect was to Netanyahu, who has been invited to meet with Trump shortly after his inauguration on January 20th. Several members of Netanyahu’s Likud Party hoped that Trump will fulfill his promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing that city as Israel’s capitol. CLINTON BACKERS SORE LOSERS Perhaps the shock of being led astray by false polling and a biased media was too much for many minorities and Clinton supporters. Even mainstream media radicals like homosexual Rachel Maddow couldn’t keep their cool on election night. Will Grigg of Liberty News Daily writes, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC News has hardly been an undecided voter during the 2016 election, and as the host of a program that offers a mix of news and commentary she has not been diffident in expressing her view of Donald Trump. As election night waxed and Hillary Clinton’s prospects waned, Maddow made an effort to retain her veneer of professionalism, but her composure was over-matched as her network prepared to call the race for the Republican nominee. “You’re awake, by the way,” Maddow told her network’s small and dwindling audience, speaking through a forced and bitterly ironic smile. “You’re not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also, you’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell. This is your life now. This is our election, now. This is our country. It’s real.” The UK Express referred to Maddow’s performance as the “meltdown of the night” on an evening when a lot of pundits realized that “the candidate they mocked for so long is now the president-elect.” A critic said: “Rachel Maddow is so clearly ed with American voters that she has lost touch with reality. Trump did not win on anti-Muslim.” She was not the only television presenter singled out for criticism because of their coverage leaning towards Mrs Clinton. BBC host Andrew Neil came under fire and was accused of being “biased” towards the Democratic candidate from viewers in the UK. Furious viewers said it was “obvious” Neil was backing Mrs Clinton and demanded the BBC "not be a vehicle for its presenters to voice their own political views". TV anchorman Lester Holt went so far as to foment racial tensions by promoting the idea that Trump’s victory was “whitelash” against minorities. Steve Watson of Prison wrote, In a remarkable broadcast Wednesday night, NBC appeared to predict a full on race war in America now that Donald Trump is to become the 45th President. Anchored by Lester Holt, the most bias debate host in history, the broadcast featured a report that used a phrase coined by Van Jones earlier in the week, ‘Whitelash’. “While Donald Trump’s many supporters are basking in his victory, many others woke up this morning feeling disillusioned by the headlines,” a clearly despondent Holt moaned. “Time and time again critics accused Trump of running a campaign with undercurrents of racism and those concerns persist now that the election results show a sharp racial divide,” Holt continued. Holt then threw to reporter Ron Allen who had prepared a fearmongering race war report... The reporters then suggested that Trump was able to capture the White House because rural Americans are inherently racist and afraid of diversity. It is amazing to me how the champions of tolerance are so intolerant when things don’t go their way. The Boston Globe relished the fact that people were burning their “New Balance” shoes after the company praised Trump. The day after the election, protests and riots were fomented by paid rabble-rousers —perhaps the same ones who were paid to disrupt Trump’s rallies. There was also evidence of radical Mexican illegals fomenting unrest as well as Mexican communist agitators on US streets. Some blacks even turned to violence, including beating up an older white man in Chicago simply because he voted for Trump. No one on the Trump side would have been guilty of this kind of conduct against a Hillary supporter. A photojournalist who spent years covering conflicts in the Middle East was brutally attacked while covering an anti-Trump protest in Oakland, California. reported in another story that, Rioting hit the streets of Portland and Oakland as Hillary Clinton supporters reacted badly to Donald Trump’s election victory, while death threats against the new president-elect flooded social media. Windows were broken and cars were set on fire in Oakland as irate protesters lit flares and blocked freeways. Sadly, my home state of Oregon has become a hot bed of left/liberal extremism: Students also hit the streets of Eugene and Portland, Oregon to protest against a democratic election. Demonstrators could be heard chanting “bitch” and “f*ck Trump” as they marched in unison. Some of the students burned a U.S. flag. The irony of the riots is that many pro-Clinton media outlets previously circulated the talking point that Trump supporters would be likely to stage violent unrest after they lost the election. Twitter was also inundated with death threats, with leftists either hoping for or personally expressing their willingness to carry out Trump’s assassination. CAN TRUMP LIVE UP TO HIS PROMISES? Frankly, I worry about a man like Trump who can be a brash and straight talking person and yet have such a tendency to pander to the same people he excoriates in public as soon as they show the least deference to him. For example, after meeting with Obama on Thursday in the White House, he called the president a “great man.” In his acceptance speech early Wednesday morning in NY, he told his audience that, “Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.” Given Trump’s numerous criticisms about her “pay to play” corruption while Secretary and her disastrous handling of the Benghazi fiasco, this can only be classified as pandering. Yes, I understand he was trying to preach national unity and make peace with his former rival, but you can do that without pandering. I was also worried about his pandering to the masses by promising things in his acceptance speech that he can’t possibly deliver on. His worst was, “Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential.” That sounds nice, but no one can promise that, not even God. That depends on each person making proper choices. Government can’t make up for or undo bad choices that plague many people in this nation—especially in the inner cities. Then he said, We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it. You can’t fix our inner cities without fixing the people problems (bad attitudes and actions) which cause these neighborhoods to be havens for gangs, crime, drugs, and sexual license without fatherly responsibility. Government work projects won’t entice people to work when government food stamps and welfare payments allow them to live idly on the dole. And how is the government going to pay for billions in infrastructure projects without more debt? Yes, I know Trump talks about tax cuts that will entice business back to the US, but even if successful, it will take more than 4 years to see results. Trump has given people false hope and expectations of quick change that simply will not happen that fast, if ever. His only chance is to show “some progress” toward those goals, but I fear the bureaucratic establishment can thwart him at every turn. Trump hasn’t even begun to reckon with the way in which the PTB can cripple this economy with higher interest rates, or a manipulated stock market crash in order to put his plans on the defensive. Look how the financial powers engineered a temporary crash in the futures markets just before the election on Tuesday and earlier in the aftermath of the Brexit vote in the UK. They wanted people to regret their political choices. Of course the markets bounced right back, but it should tell you what they can do a lot to sabotage Trump’s rebuilding of America. Even in his quest to undo Obamacare, there are huge obstacles, not the least of which are the millions of people that now have subsidized insurance, but are otherwise uninsurable if you do away with Obamacare. Can you imagine the political outrage if Trump tries to strip them of their new found government benefits. How is Trump going to fulfill his promise of more affordable insurance without taking away those freebees? -Expanding subsidies for all? Premiums are going up precisely because of the mandate for companies to take on those expensive uninsurable people. Once corrupted by benefits, people aren’t going to give them up without complaint. And, how will he do away with the hated mandate without causing a further collapse of the insurance pool that supports all these expensive prior existing conditions that insurance companies must cover? Will Trump succumb to the call for a single payer system? It already appears that Trump is preparing to placate the financial powers that be by naming an insider to be the Secretary of Treasury. The latest person to be vetted by the Trump transition team is Jamey Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, one of the most corrupt of the big bankers. I do have to applaud, however, Trump’s ending statement in his very presidential speech: I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone. All people and all other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict. But the real question is, will the neocons that Christie, Gingrich and Giliani bring into the Administration allow that? Will they throw another false flag terror attack on the US in order to goad Trump into another foreign war? They are all too capable of things like that. In summary, while I applaud the magnificent upset half the nation has given to Trump, I worry about Trump’s lack of preparation or understanding of the depth of conspiracy we are dealing with. It’s much bigger than the personal corruption of the Clinton or Bush families. I worry about the fact that there isn’t a single person within the Trump circle of advisors that really understands the conspiracy (and is opposed to it), and how lethal it can be if Trump resists control. Look what happened to JFK and the attempt on Ronald Reagan—which made him more compliant. The only thing I can promise you is that I’ll be tracking what happens in the new Trump Administration and reporting to you each week what I find—no holds barred. While I’m excited about the Clinton defeat, because it has bought us more time, I’m frankly not optimistic about Trump’s ability to actually reverse the damage we have suffered under globalist control. He may slow them down a bit as they try to control him, but the PTB are too powerful to overcome through peaceful means—especially by someone who really doesn’t know how deeply they are embedded in government, and who naively allows conspirators like Chris Christie, Rudolph Giuliani, Jamey Dimon and Newt Gingrich into his inner circle of advisors. PREPAREDNESS TIP: PREP YOUR BICYCLE by Andrew Skousen When it comes to human-powered transportation nothing is as efficient as the bicycle. On roads and good trails a person can pedal a bike farther in an hour than they can get by walking all day. Bicycles can also be configured to carry as much as 200lbs of cargo—although the effort to pedal it goes up proportionately. In hard times when fuel is scarce I expect the bicycle to become a key part of your local transportation, so it pays to make it as useful as possible while parts are cheap. Most people have a bicycle—sometimes two or three—but few consider how they will work for you if they became your primary mode of transportation. A high-tech mountain bike with double suspension and large, knobby tires is great on downhill trails and dirt tracks but riding it just a few miles around town can be tiring. The suspension absorbs energy from each pedal stroke (unless they can be locked) and knobby tires are inefficient on pavement. On the other hand, that sleek, lightweight road bike can fly over the 20 miles to the next town, but it fares poorly on anything less than solid pavement. Potholes and sharp bumps can puncture tires and even bend the lightweight wheels. The thin, efficient tires often slip out easily on water, sand or gravel. Mud, loose dirt and big rocks can also send you flying. The easiest, cheapest option to make your bike more practical is to buy another set of tires. For about $60 you can get smoother, all-weather treads to turn a hardtail mountain bike into a reasonable city bike. Check the sidewall of your existing tires, most will say something like 26x2.25. This the diameter (26in) x the width (2.25in). Road bikes are usually 28in or 700cm in diameter with thinner tires. Road bikes often need a sturdier tire like this Continental which has more tread but is still fast. Your local bike shop will be happy to help if you ask them about “touring” options. Puncture-resistant tires or tire liners are also valuable to save you on inner tubes—especially when you can’t get new ones. There’s also new high tech “airless” tires coming to the market like Utah based NEXO tires. To turn your bike into a good, practical around-town vehicle it will also need racks to carry items. Rear bike racks are extremely useful. There are collapsible baskets, panniers (saddlebags), and even rear seats. Most bikes have attachment points for a dedicated rack, but nearly all racks that attach to these points are only rated for a paltry 55lbs. This universal bike rack that connects to the seat post is rated for double that. Baskets, cages and saddlebags are useful for carrying things but if you live in the country (or plan to retreat there) you will have larger distances between towns so look for detachable baskets and carriers to reduce wind drag when they aren’t needed. Wind makes a huge difference when pedaling a bike long distances. Although taking kids to soccer and music lessons will have a lower priority in hard times there will be plenty of trips with multiple people. If you have small kids consider how you can bring them along. Kids bike seats are best on sturdier, upright bikes. Bike trailers can be useful for kids and cargo and there are tow bar and tow rope options for helping less capable kids (or adults) along. The tow bar could be useful for those times when you need to bring an empty bike to someone waiting. Speaking of towing, bike cargo trailers could easily convert any sturdy bike into a small hauler. There are many options out there from small units to extra-large cargo trailers but remember that bikes are inherently limited by the practicalities of pulling (and stopping) based on your weight and strength. This article summarizes some of the best trailer options including the Aosome Wanderer. There are several other important features you will need to make the bike practical for all your local errands including fenders (for rain) and strong lights for riding at night. I will cover these and some ideal new bike packages in a future tip. In the meantime keep in shape by getting whatever bikes you have now out and using them. [END]


Popular posts from this blog

Heber C. Kimball - The time will come when they (Church Leaders) will not be with you

Vision: The Coming Destruction of America- (With Added Insight;Beware of the Gadiantons(Elites))

Vision of the End of the World (Sarah Menet, 1979, NDE)