Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Friday, December 15, 2017

Is this "conspiracy theory", or actually possible? You decide. WHY CLINTON LOST THE ELECTION.

[This has been edited, as it was poorly written late at night, and needed to be corrected.]

The puppetmasters wanted someone they could control. Clinton has never been driven by ideology - at least not since Alinsky stopped popping her for convenience, whenever he happened to be in town and didn't have a phone number for someone easier on the eyes. She is driven by two things, only: money and the ability to screw with - or kill - the people who displease her in any fashion. It could be her hairdresser, one of her staffers, a random person wearing a MAGA hat, or a whole group - such as The Deplorables™. They couldn't trust her to accomplish the goals they would set for her.

The individuals who own and operate the Left - Soros is on the fringe, held out as a visible target, still working for his masters, as he did when he aided the Nazis in rounding up Jews for the camps and the killing - simply didn't want her to win.
The _real_ movers and shakers, who remain anonymous to us in the cheap seats, knew they could control Trump by surrounding him with true believers/Obama hold-overs like McMaster, Tillerson, and Cohn. The puppetmasters know they must allow Trump to win a round or two, to satisfy the people who think they voted him into office, to quiet the plebes. So he gets to appoint Gorsuch, or wins a Supreme Court case which will seem to give him the ability to stop some of the jihadis who have been sneaking into America with the "refugees" (who are merely jihadis who haven't come out of the closet, yet), while the majority of the muslim fifth column is openly assisted in immigrating thanks to our own government and the groups getting rich by "re-settling" muslims all over our country.

As a separate issue, many of us on the conservative (not necessarily Republican) Right have noticed something interesting about where these muslims are being placed. Many are being inserted not just into Red states, but into conservative counties where they are expected to return the favor by voting Democrat. There is the additional "benefit" of them being in good position to go full-jihadi on us when the time for playing "Moderate™ muslim" is over.

So, Hillary was allowed to play her games with the primaries, shutting Sanders out, since she (illegally) was able to arrange for complete control of all the money available to the DNC. However, I contend that it is possible the puppetmasters of the Left arranged for Trump to win, because he could be controlled. But even if they failed to control him, they could place so many stumbling blocks in his way that he would do far less harm to their agenda than Hillary might do with her greed and sociopathic personality.


  1. You might be right. Some of those obama/shrub/clinton deep state puppet holdovers are gone though.

    The problem for me at least is the assumption that whoever or whatever is controlling the puppet strings is both
    omnipotent and omniscient. They make mistakes, miscalculate etc. For example the internet took them by surprise. They have lost control of the narrative.

    1. Grey,

      I just wrote about three pages of response to your comment, and when I pushed the "publish" button, it all disappeared. It is a bit after midnight, and I am bushed. I will try to re-post my reply later today or this evening. I hope it notifies you that I have replied, so that I can at least honro your comment with a reply. Take care.

    2. [Due to the character limits imposed by Blogger, I'll post this in two or three parts.]


      Sorry for the hiatus. We're fully snowed in at this time, about four feet on the ground, and no way to get off the side of the mountain we live on. Had to move a large quantity of snow to provide an area for our dog to conduct his business. Oops, probably TMI.

      I apologize if I gave the impression I think those pulling the strings are incapable of making a mistake, or know all. I'm not religious, so those aren't common concepts in my lexicon. However, when you consider the few men that got together and pulled off the creation of the Federal Reserve, by which we are routinely manipulated, that example alone should make it evident that there are forces out there which have the means, the will and te desire to exert as much control over us as is humanly possible. The mechanisms of control may be partially visible - like the Fed - but much of it isn't, and perhaps parts of it are beyond our immediate comprehension. I'm not talking magic, but someone said (RAH?) that any sufficiently advanced technology could give the appearance of being "magic".

      Consider the Fed for a moment: I think someone I read recently quoted Baron Rothschild as having said that he didn't care who thought they ran the government, if he had control of the money, he would be in control of the country. The Fed is, and always has been, I believe, a private entity. Not an arm of the government. And they can play games that can make or break an administration.

      Do you remember that interest rates were never raised during the Obama Debacle? Are you aware of how soon after he was elected, Trump's administration very quickly faced an increase in the interest rates? I'm pretty ignorant concerning money, and why interest rates are lowered at one time versus raising them at another. I think it is partly to do with the fact that the Fed does not seem to alter them in a fashion that is consistent and logical. Yes, they give us excuses, but I think there is reason to believe that - even before Obama - they altered them for _political_ reasons, not because it was good for the economy. Call me naive, but I think that became obvious through Obama's two terms.

    3. [Part 2]

      Now that Trump has managed to kick-start the economy, bringing it back from the damage that Obama deliberately accomplished (think "Cloward-Piven, and other communist strategies in which he had been indoctrinated), I felt that the Fed raising the interest rates - tightening up on money when the economy was booming and could use some easier money for expansion, new jobs and the hiring of many people for those jobs - was a "Never-Trump" or socialist attempt to screw with his success, to slow the economy so that the Left could denigrate his achievements.

      So, yes I feel we are being manipulated by a shadow oligarchy (not a shadow government or Deep State™) that is successful at aiming us toward _their_ goals, even as some of us struggle to turn aside from their agenda. I am trying hard not to be so paranoid as to think they are _allowing_ us to have Trump as a respite from Obama. Obama was a disposable tool, one which did accelerate our movement toward a more serious form of socialism, as he did his best to deconstruct America. We either got lucky, pulling off an election that not even many of _us_ felt stood a chance against the Clinton Machine, or the oligarchs feared that we were getting motivated by the damage Obama was doing to our country, waking up too large a number of us reluctant conservatives (reluctant to raise our voices and our fists for what we know is right), so they tossed us the bone of a maverick instead of either Hillary or some RINO. I hope that is not what happened, but knowing how dirty the Clintons play, it remains a question in my mind. Left to her own devices, and the Democrat voting machine, she should have won.

      If that thought seems ridiculous to you, consider the number of Republicans who lost the seats they had legitimately won by the Dems being allowed to "harvest" (fraudulently create) votes a week or more after the polls had closed, both in Florida and California, two of the most important states. They have never been allowed to get away with that blatant an illegal count before now, but the Republican Party let them roll right over the candidates who had won those seats, not even checking to see how many of those votes were real, were valid.

      What does that tell you about our supposed two-party system? It reminds me of the feeling I had that McCain didn't have the balls - or the desire, perhaps? - to question Obama's eligibility to run for President, let alone get elected. That ir either didn't matter to him, or he was afraid of being called a "racist" for questioning "The One's™" right to be in the running.

      Anyway, Grey, it is hard for me to believe there isn't a lot more than meets the eye here. I'd be pleased to discover I am wrong, but it just doesn't seem to add up.

  2. Off topic, Reg, a pleasant Christmas to you and yours. Not using the word merry, because it doesn't apply to the current environment we have to watch every day.

    1. Grog, as usual I am remiss in checking this blog site for comments from you - probably my only continuing fan. I don't know if replying will trigger a notification for you, since I am abysmally ignorant about how this whole blog thing works, but I hope it does. Thanks for staying in touch and for the greeting. I wish the best for you and your loved ones, as well.

      I agree with your assessment of our current status as a nation - and as a culture. I think that 2020 is going to be a bloody knife fight, with all hands raised against Trump, as usual, although the in-fighting amongst the drooling crowd of Democrat candidates will provide some entertainment. I doubt that there will be any one candidate who will "rule them all", as Hillary did when she cut old Bernie out of the picture.

      However, I heard that Willie Brown has stated that Kamala Harris will be the front-runner and inevitable winner of the Democrat primaries. He said she has an incredible grasp of how to work the machine, and that she is almost certain to make it happen. He said, down on the low-low, that she intends to sleep with every delegate in the Democrat primaries, male _or_ female, and then, in the final showdown with President Trump, she will do at least sixty percent of the electoral college. Willie said she is fairly certain that fifty-two percent would do the "trick", but he told her to do the full sixty. He said that - based on his own experience - she might _not_ be able to make every one of that fifty-two percent leave with a smile, so doing a few additional is a safer bet. He said she is good, but not _that_ good, and not exactly a "spring chicken". An anonymous warehouse worker at Amazon says he just filled an order in her name for two 25 ft 5/8 inch garden hoses and a basket of Titleist golf balls. I suppose "practice makes perfect".

      Take care, my friend. If you ever get bored, and would rather not wait for me to notice you've commented here, you can find me at regt_2000@yahoo dot com.

  3. Good morning, Reg, good to see some words from you.

    Heh, that's good, willie brown's "encouragement", two garden hoses etc................... :) I've had the same idea regarding the newest phenom, O-C, was there any "evening agreements" between her and some of the dems in noo yawk, to help get her elected. It's a thought, anyway.

    I'll semd some words this weekend, stay safe, my friend.

    1. Top of the morning to you, Grog, although it is now early evening here in Montana. I wrote a long comment to you here, which didn't get published for some reason. The blog _seems_ to be allowing me to comment, but when I press "publish", the comment window closes, yet nothing actually gets posted. I am going to try signing in, in case that will make a difference.

      I like your idea of "evening agreements". I always thought Chuck the Schmuck Schumer was a closet gay, but maybe he is "bi", and is "mentoring" Occasional-Cortex, taking her "in hand", guiding her and assisting her. I have heard nothing about how this apparent airhead ran a campaign that won her primary and then beat the Republican candidate. I've read nothing about her staffing, her campaign strategy, her sources of money, her training in how to present herself and her (lord love a duck) platform. Lacking any of that info, I wouldn't be surprised to discover this is simply another "Kamala Harris sleeps her way to the top" scenario. Another "lb.MeToo" incident.

      Nonetheless, this twit seems a little too arrogant, entitled, and sure of herself. Obviously, the people that voted for her watch a lot of Sesame Street and read only Giant Golden Books, but even so, I just can't imagine how she pulled it off (maybe Chucky knows how she pulled it off ;-). I've got this niggling little voice in my head telling me there is more going on here than meets the eye. Hopefully the voice doesn't know what the hell it is talking about, anymore than the other voices in my head :-)

      Take care, and I'll try to stay in better touch.

    2. It may be that everyone has seen this video (the Brains Behind AOC) and understand its dynamics, but I hadn't until recently. I think it explains clearly and logically how AOC (who I am now referring to as "Airhead-On-Crack") had a campaign for her seat in the House, who supported her and ran her campaign, and how it is that she makes the comments that she makes. I have to believe that many of her outrageous remarks are likely due to her wandering off the script written for her by her chief of staff and the woman (Rosales?) who apparently writes most of what A-O-C parrots for the cameras, in session at the House, and in public elsewhere.

      Watch this video if you haven't already. Heck, watch it twice or more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU&fbclid=IwAR0O4viOgj_eL3wZzONkiRIXez9pZ6UEJtW0st66DYWMSZ0awObmpwlOuGg

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.


Sorry, folks. I was completely ignorant about comment rules. Anyone can post, but I'd prefer a name, even if it is made up. Anonymous posts just seem cheap, if you know what I mean. Also, if you want to argue a point, that's fine. Cheap shots and name calling towards me or another person commenting (ad hominem) is rude and will get you banned. Other than that, I'd love to get some comments.