A Strange Silence

Have you noticed something missing from current events lately?

There hasn’t been a terror attack occur; or if there has been a little one, it has been ignored by the press. Do you think it’s because Obama’s ISIS strategy is working or that it’s a campaign managed non event?

Given that Hillary Clinton has so much of her money from foreign interests, perhaps they are monitoring terrorist websites and shutting down any potential plot. After all, Hillary has gotten millions from Saudi Arabia and $1 million dollar gift from Qatar to the Foundation as a birthday gift to Bill.

These people have trillions of dollars at stake. They do not want what happened in 2004 to be repeated. If you recall, an Osama Bin Laden tape emerged at the end of the Kerry-Bush campaign. Many credited that with giving Bush the win as it reminded people of the danger our nation faces and his response to it. Hillary cannot afford to have that happen to her. She is weak when it comes to ISIS and we all know why.

She also needs the Muslim community in Michigan and elsewhere to vote for her. Hillary would be loathe to criticize any Muslims, but might have to acknowledge their work behind an attack. This from someone who carefully avoids the words radical Islamic extremists.

The network that the Clintons and other elites have is world wide. They have worked at it for 30 years. They are manipulators par excellence.

However, do not think that a Clinton administration would spare us terror attacks. Her election would probably increase them as they know she and her handlers would not go after them with a vengeance. Instead, they would use it against the American people to strangle us further in rules and regulations.

What Next? Trump TV?

Or perhaps Breitbart TV. It’s an idea I hoped for months ago. The alphabet networks are impossible to watch. Bias drips from them like poison from a viper’s mouth. Fox News has also become unwatchable. They are either touting Never Trumpers or throwing doubt on Trump’s ability to win like a fire extinguisher on a stove fire. Fox business is better, but it is headed by Neil Cavuto who also seems impervious to The Donald’s abilities or charm.

Talk radio has been infected, too. Cheetoh inhaling Glenn Beck believes he is God’s interpreter on earth. He has a vendetta now against Trump that is comprised of spite and the will for self annihilation. Hugh Hewitt has shown his RINO colors and so have others.

From the beginning of his campaign, Trump has chosen to use social media. He’s done so brilliantly. It has allowed him to bypass the talking heads and go right to the people. He has used Twitter and Facebook to his advantage. This was something the Democrats excel at, but Trump has succeeded in, well, Trumping them.
I was surprised post debate to find out that there was a big event online that I had missed. I found this at the conservativetreehouse:

Much like a Trump rally, the Facebook Live event brought in a massive crowd of viewers, and the campaign saw record-breaking engagement numbers, proving Mr. Trump’s message is resonating across the board.

24 million people were reached during the ground breaking Facebook Live event, which translated into 8.8 million video views, 91 percent of which were unique users. These viewers watched 11.8 million minutes of content, the equivalent to 22 years of view time, which illustrates the strength of the event’s reach. There were 1.3 million comments made about the event, which garnered over 8 million post engagements making it one of the largest debate discussions on the internet.

The enormous groundswell of support for Mr. Trump spurred an impressive fundraising effort as well, generating $9 million in contributions from an excess of 150 thousand donors.

Breitbart says CNN must be concerned because they reported:

CNN’s Brian Stelter speculates that the Trump campaign’s use of a Facebook livestream to broadcast coverage before and after Wednesday night’s presidential debate “looked like a no-frills version of a cable news channel” and could presage a future news channel aimed at Trump’s populist center-right supporters.

From CNN:

The stream topped out at around 200,000 simultaneous viewers on Facebook before the debate — low when compared to TV, but high when compared to everything else on the web.

The pitch was clear: the campaign said it was taking its message “straight to the American people,” bypassing “the corrupt mainstream media.”

Once it was archived and made available for later viewing, the stream reached more than 8.6 million Facebook users, according to CrowdTangle data, beating the debate streams from news outlets like ABC and Fox.

Steve Bannon, the Breitbart News chairman who became the Trump campaign CEO in August, did not deny that there’s been talk about a possible network when asked by CNNMoney earlier this week.

He responded to the rumors with a smile and said, “Trump is an entrepreneur.” He also pointed out Trump’s social media prowess on Facebook and Twitter, saying, “Look at the engagement. It’s incredible.

Yes it is. And the country is ripe for a new outlet.

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is already owner of the New York Observer. He has indicated something may be brewing.

Interestingly, blog comments on the story show people excitedly hoping for such a network. They have even suggested people to be on it: Greta van Susteren, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Judge Jeanine Pirro, Michael Savage, Herman Cain, Judge Napolitano, Ann Coulter, Sheriff David Clark, Milo Yiannopolous, Mike Cernovich, Sarah Palin.

Andrew Breitbart must be smiling.

Debate Round 3

Finally, the debates are over. I think they are greatly overblown in importance. They are hyped relentlessly by the networks because they benefit from your watching them. Unless somebody really blows it, they don’t move the needle much.

Neither candidate blew it last night, although Hillary got carried away on several issues and said some bizarre things. Her face looked like it had many filters on the camera lens to hide any wrinkles. Fox Business people thought the camera adjusted the color on Trump to make him look sickly. I’m not surprised about either accusation. Hillary dressed in good guy, virginal white, must have been done by her handlers to take attention off her ill focusing eyes or to suggest purity. She did not wear a flag pin. Trump did. Notice how the podiums made them both of equal height, which they aren’t. Wouldn’t have been done had the shorter person been a Republican.

Chris Wallace did a pretty good job as debate host, but he did get a bit school marmish at times when he tried to butt in or correct them. At least he managed to ask some questions with a little teeth in them for Hillary.

The first question he decided to throw at them regarded the Supreme Court. Hillary went first and said the Court should stand on the “side of the American people” and “should represent all of us.” What are they then, Congress? She threw the Constitution under the bus and gave the court the right to legislate.

Trump pointed out that Justice Ginsburg had made negative remarks about him that she shouldn’t have made as a court justice. He pointed out that they should interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted. He mentioned he had given out 20 names of people he would nominate and got in a plug for his defense of the second amendment.

Hillary countered that she supports it, but wants to get rid of the loopholes that allowed toddlers to get hold of guns and kill people. Are these murdering toddlers a threat to the American way of life? Are they responsible for all the murders in Chicago? Nobody told me.

Then she segued into Roe v. Wade and how she would protect it and Planned Parenthood. Trump questioned her on late term abortions and Hillary talked about the horrible choices women face who might lose their lives if they go through with the birth even days before the due date.

That makes no sense. Neither Trump nor Wallace called her on that. Babies can survive early delivery even at five months. Couldn’t one be put in an incubator instead of killed? What of Cesareans? The whole argument is a red herring.

Trump began to warm up as the debate continued. Wallace asked about immigration and Trump said Hillary wants amnesty and no borders. Hillary began to snigger while he looked presidential. He called her on her vote to build a wall in 2006. Wallace cut him off, but Trump succeeded in making his main points. I wish Trump had said that must be one of the public/private things she does on issues as mentioned in Wikileaks.

But, there’s only so much time in a debate.

Trump said “thank you” when Wallace mentioned Wikileaks and the speech Hillary gave to Wall St. when she mentioned to Brazilian bankers that her dream was open borders. She explained that she was referring to energy and having open borders for electric grids. That made no sense at all. It was obviously an attempt to twist her previous remarks. She took the opportunity to start in on Russia as the source of Wikileaks and suggest Trump was in on it.

We were headed to the twilight zone on that answer. On Twitter, Wikileaks again pointed out that she didn’t deny the truth of their hacks, but, in fact, verified their authenticity.

When they got to the topic of the economy, I must say Hillary makes me zone out. She digs her cliches back out of the trash can and recycles them. “When the middle class thrives, America thrives,” equal pay for women, global climate change and clean energy will get us to prosperity. She’ll get jobs (from somewhere), give free college, blah, blah, blah. I wish Trump had called her on the equal pay for women bit. It just came out that the Clinton Foundation – like the State Department – gives women 2/3 the salary men get.

At this point, Trump was taking control of the debate and got his words in, despite her attempt to talk over him. I liked that he looked at the camera and his face was expressive. She looked away most of the time. Probably it’s something to do with her ailments, because her eyes had a strange focus.

Trump lamented our poor GDP of 1% vs. India’s 8%. He said her tax plan would double our taxes, that the October jobs report was bad and the economy stagnant. His plan would grow jobs by getting companies that are overseas back in the U.S. creating jobs.

Hillary audaciously said she is now against TPP. Again, one of those public/private issues of hers? She went so far as to say she’d have a “trade prosecutor.” Now if that doesn’t scare you, you haven’t been paying attention to the schemes of the Democrat party. Who would he or she go after and what would that mean? Ominous indeed.

Inevitably she went back to Trump’s taxes. He countered with her lack of success in changing things in her 30 year career.

Inevitably, too, Chris Wallace brought us back to the Billy Bush video (as if this hasn’t gotten enough network time or apologies). After a brief defense, Trump pivoted to her deleted 33,000 emails and Project Veritas. I understand he had its founder, James O’Keefe, in the audience. Wallace then mentioned the Clinton Foundation and Haiti. Her canned answer included how eleven million people had gotten help with AIDs through them. Trump rightly called it a “criminal enterprise.” He asked her to give back the $25 million she got from the Saudis and Qatar who throw gays out of windows and treat women horribly. Also that the Haitians hate the Clintons.

Wallace has gotten a lot of attention from his question about the election being “rigged.” Would Trump accept the results if he lost? He said he’d have to see about it. Sounds reasonable. By saying that he was telling people to go to Project Veritas and watch the tapes themselves. I noticed that even on Channel 5, anchor Joe Birch mentioned this answer as if it were anti American. Really, Joe makes Ron Burgundy look like an intellectual.

Hillary switched on her American patriotism, wheezing on about the American way, expression of the people, blah, blah, blah. She neglected to mention the uproar Gore caused in 2000 when he plunged the country into disarray with his challenge of the Florida election returns. They were all for that then.

Oh well, hypocrisy is celebrated by the Democrats and Clintons.

On to the debt and Social Security. She will raise taxes on the rich (except for her buddies) to cover Social Security; Trump brought up the drain on the economy Obamacare has and will be. Good that he did this because although Wallace mentioned an Obamacare question to come, it never did. That was a big miss on Wallace’s part.

Asked to sum up their campaign in a minute, Hillary blathered on about “reaching out to all Americans,” and how “children and families” have been her life’s work. Could she have pandered for the women’s vote any more obviously? Trump went on to mention his desire to make America great again.

A lot of the debate covered topics we’d been over several times before. Besides Obamacare, Wallace didn’t touch on law and order, Black Lives Matter or education.

I skipped the post debate analysis. It’s useless. They all have something or someone to push. A bunch of clucking hens. A few nights ago I watched “Killing Reagan” on Nat Geo. They had a scene after Reagan’s last debate. The pundits were tearing it down. They completely missed.

It doesn’t matter what they say – although they want you to think it does. What matters is what gets across. Last night just reinforced the past six months’ campaigns.

Most polls today show Trump won.

Poll Dancing

Monday Monmouth came out with a poll giving Hillary Clinton a 12 point lead over Donald Trump.

My reaction? A big yawn.

I had read a warning about it at conservativetreehouse blog. The blogger pointed out that the pollster, Patrick Murray, is a longtime progressive. It noted, “Monmouth, as a polling outfit, NEVER show the baseline raw data, and never show the assumptions they insert into their methodology. As a consequence, don’t believe for a moment that today’s release will be anything dissimilar than their prior historic nonsense.

“It is important to understand why this polling release is so critical for Monmouth. The way the entire rigging works is someone has to first ‘create’ the narrative, that’s where Monmouth comes in. Then the media promotes the narrative; that’s the critical role of the MSM in pushing the narrative through the poll. Lastly, Chris Wallace (Fox debate moderator) will use a combination of the polling release, along with the narrative, to frame his questioning during the debate on Wednesday.

“It’s just how they roll.”

Later on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh mentioned the poll. He had some doubts about it, too. Then he went on to say that as the election gets closer, the polls will adjust to a more realistic number so as to maintain future credibility.

I don’t expect that at all. I imagine they will show Hillary with a lead to the very end. If you’ll recall, Brexit was supposed to fail, too, according to polls at the end. It didn’t. They were way off.

I don’t expect pollsters to change their strategy much because they know their numbers will quickly be forgotten. Do you remember what was predicted in the Romney Obama matchup of ’12? Neither do I.

Media outlets will want to influence and discourage our side even on the day of the election.

Another reason they will continue to push Hillary’s numbers is to skew them. Monmouth is an outlier, but it helps the Real Clear politics average to give a higher number for Clinton. By the way, I don’t believe in the averaging of polls at all. It’s either the right number or it isn’t.

And don’t forget: if it is a tight race and Trump wins, Clintonites will point to the polls as justification for calling it fraudulent.

No, don’t expect any changes in the polls.

You can keep your eye on the LA Times Poll, proved right in the past two elections, with Trump up for many days. Rasmussen is more reliable, too.

Advice From Across the Pond

I saw this on a blog and thought it insightful. It’s an anonymous Brexit voter who has some advice for us regarding our presidential election. And below, also, some from Belgians.

Warning: Salty language ahead.

Hello. I don’t frequently post threads here, but having noticed some emergent patterns watching the ongoing battle for the White House I felt compelled to write this up as a primer for our American friends. As you may have gleaned from the thread, I am in fact British.
For the last few weeks I’ve been noticing a clear correlation between the tactics used by pro Remain interest in the British EU referendum and the tactics being used by pro Hillary interests in the current presidential election. I feel like it’s important I share some of my limited insights as a Brexit survivor.


You’ve probably already noTiced this one for yourself. In exactly the same way the vast majority of British media interests colluded with politicians and corporations to sculpt a narrative of pro Brexit supporters being a loud angry minority of recidivistic racists and bigots raging at their loss of a place in a more “diverse,” “tolerant,” “multi-ethnic” society so too have the American media colluded with your political class to paint a picture of Trump supporters being a loud angry minority of recidivistic “racists” and “bigots” raging at their loss of a place in a more “diverse,” “tolerant,” “multi-ethnic” society. The British polls were rigged just as severely as your current presidential polls seem to be (more on the importance of this later). This is to say nothing of the insane level of new media manipulation (i.e. internet shills everywhere) another striking parallel.
The most important thing in this last month is not to let this constant barrage demoralise you, or anyone else around you. Spread as much fact correction as you can to friends, relatives, colleagues, anyone who will listen. This strategy proved to be a double edge sword for the establishment during Brexit, because of the day of the vote, most Remainiacs stayed at home confident of victory, while everyone who wanted out of EU turned out in record numbers (80% + voter turnout) and filled their ballots in with ink.


You’d have to be the most bluepilled fuckwit on the planet to believe the death of Jo Cox was anything other than a staged event to try and prevent a pro Brexit vote. More demoralisation. It was extremely telling how her tragic death was broadcast 24/7 in the run up to the vote and then she was never mentioned again.
I suspect this pattern is going to repeat itself in the US in the runup to election day. Some liberal darling will be killed by a crazed pro Trump supporter and the media will be a 24/7 orgy of virtue signalling and shaming tactics to stop people voting Trump. The “grab her by the pussy” tape maybe was meant to be their Jo Cox style killshot but leaked early. Nonetheless be prepared for a death.


Based on talking to friends from around the country and their informal polling of people in their areas (pub, workplace, etc.), it’s actually very hard to find anyone outside of Marxist shithole London university who actually voted Remain. Granted, I have no objective evidence to back up this suspicion but I strongly believe the vote was rigged and the actual unadjusted outcome was more like 65% Leave vs. 35% Remain. Expect to go into the election on November 8th with Clinton having an automatic 10-15% advantage you need to overcome.


Anyone who visited Britain during the referendum probably observed that the Brexiteers literally shitposted Remainiacs to death on the internet and in real life. I’d say it’s very important to spend this next month wisely, completely demoralizing any pockets of Hillary voters you encounter. How you do this is best left to your own judgment – i.e. if they were Sanders supporters drop enough evidence of him being fucked out of the nomination, Hillary’s extreme corruption etc. in their laps until they’re down enough to not bother voting on November 8th. If they’re actual, genuine Hillary supporters, convince them it’s in the bag for them so they’ll be too lazy to go out and vote. Whatever you think will work best.

The other side of the coin is mobilising as many Trump supporters and neutrals as humanly possible to vote. As mentioned above, the numbers will likely be skewed. It’s also important to have observers at as many polling stations as possible keeping an eye out for vote fraud/vote manipulation. Record everything.


Britain was able to overcome a stacked deck by the skin of her teeth and slip a knife between the ribs of the globalist entity. Now it’s your turn, America.
This will, very literally, be your last and only chance. If you fail to get Trump elected this November they will ensure that never, ever again will another wildcard, non establishment approved candidate will ever secure a nomination. With this in mind, harden yourself up for the weeks ahead. Don’t let yourself get demoralised and do everything in your power to mobilise votes for Trump and nullify votes for Hillary.
The very best of luck to you all.

Some Belgians have shared advice, too:


No, it’s not a misspelling.

It’s the world we live in now. Not a democracy or republic run by the people and/or their representatives, but a nation that is shaped by the media.

They now determine what we know, when we know it, how we know it or whether we know it. The takeover is almost complete. The TV networks, the newspapers and magazines have coalesced for a candidate and philosophy that has no room for dissent. They make the polls, get the results they want and “inform” us. And as Walter Cronkite – a man obviously before his time, but a shaper nonetheless – said: “And that’s the way it is.” Period. No dissent allowed.

If you had any doubts before, Wikileaks has confirmed it beyond a doubt. Their daily damning information on Hillary Clinton doesn’t make it to Page 1 or the top (or end) of the nightly newscast. It’s as if none of it exists. I’ve never seen a blackout so stunning.

The Zblog has an article that demonstrates what’s going on today:

Reading a long column by James Pinkerton the other day got me thinking about how strange things seem today, compared to not so long ago. Pinkerton used to be on TV a lot when I bothered watching cable news. He would be the libertarian, as well as contrarian, guy on the panel of a current affairs show. That was the standard model for current events programming. They would rustle up some columnists and have them talk about issues presented by a moderator. Maybe they would add some shouting to punch it up a bit.

That seems like a long time ago for the simple reason it seems so quaint and innocent. When a guy like Cal Thomas or Bob Novak moved to TV, they brought with them a long history of opinion writing. You knew where they were coming from most of the time. They still wrote columns for newspapers and they had seen a lot of politicians come and go, thus giving their opinions a salty flavor. Even the lefty chat show guys were old newspaper men, who had seen and heard it all.

The point being is that even though the news was biased and the balance on the chat shows tilted to the Left, you knew where everyone stood. Bill Press, for example, was crazy as an outhouse rat, but his opinions were his own. When he got into a heated argument with his conservative co-host, you knew it was a bit of an act, but it was also a fight they had had a thousand times over beers at their favorite DC watering hole. The point here is the news has always been biased, but it was on the level, for the most part.

This election has made clear that the mass media is anything but on the level. It’s not just biased, it is manufactured bullshit cooked up by schemers in league with members of the ruling class. The Michelle Fields hoax is a great example. Fields, according to her bio, has never actually worked as a reporter. She popped out of college a few years ago, wiggled her ass at the right guy and got cast as a “journalist” on-line and on TV. She’s too young to have opinions worth having so she may as well be an actress, hired to play a role.

That’s pretty much what she is, as she is willing to have whatever opinion you will pay her to have, even if it is the opposite of what she said yesterday. Fields is by no means an oddity. The Wikileaks dump revealed that Louise Mensche has been secretly working for Hillary Clinton. Mensch has been passing herself off as a conservative and crusader against political correctness. It turns out that it was all an act. As the linked new piece notes, immediately after the truth was made public, she was on Twitter playing a new role.

It’s not just the TV tarts pulling this stuff. CNBC has a guy they kit out as the avuncular professor names John Harwood. It turns out he was in cahoots with the Clinton camp to rig the news in their favor. Hilariously, CNN was giving Clinton the debate questions in advance so she could not just prepare for them, but prepare how to act surprised by the question. That’s so typical of how the Clintons operate. Somewhere, in Hillary’s things, is the fourth nail intended for the Crucifixion.

Of course, none of this is being covered by the main news outlets. As I write this, the New York Times has a couple of stories about a rumor about the rumors of rumors of Trump being rude to a woman on their front page. Nothing about the Wikileaks stuff. The Post has the same made up story about Trump and a story about how vexed the Clinton camp is over their e-mails being released.The official newspaper of the Imperial Capital cannot be bothered to cover the biggest scandal since Watergate. It’s as if it never happened.

This is just another aspect of the tsunami of bullshit that is the major media today. It’s not that they color the news or that they make up stories. The actors posing as a journalists on TV can be written off as grifters working the system so they can land lucrative TV gigs. There’s no excusing what appears to be an organized and coordinated attempt by major media to suppress the news. If you want to know about Wikileaks, you have to go to the alternative media or read through the database of released documents on your own.

It is one thing when the news is slanted. People adjust to the bias. We are in a strange age in that the mass media is entirely made up. None of of it is on the level. It’s layers and layers of manufactured stories, crowding out real news, to the point where it is impossible to take any of it at face value. You can’t even be sure the people in the stories are real. The Clinton campaign is planting child actors in crowds, posing as adorable local kids, to ask questions. Our public life is now less authentic than professional wrestling.

Is this the result of the breakdown of pubic trust? Are we just seeing the logical result of a ruling class that no longer has any trust in the people whom it rules? Maybe this is just the natural end of a mass media age. No one knows, as this is the first time one has existed. Maybe in the fullness of time, we’ll know that mass media cultures always decay into a liar’s ball, where nothing is on the level, nothing is what appears to be and the only thing you can know is no one can be believed. Perhaps this is what Hell is like.