So, Who REALLY Won "The POPULAR VOTE!"?

It's obvious: DONALD TRUMP did!

FURTHER HERE'S THE REAL BREAKDOWN (not sure where the post is from; unaccredited):

Why We Have The Electoral College:

Dear Fellow Americans (obviously, I didn't write this, but it's true anyway!)

We hear a cacophony of blaring and bleating from the media and the Hillary gaggle that she won the popular vote and therefore she should be president, 60,839,497 to 60,265,847. 47.8% to 47,3% with the remaining 4.9% going to the other candidates. But here are the facts:

Trump won the popular vote in 31 states to her 19 and DC 62% to her 19%. Trump led in the total popular vote for all states except California. Hillary won California 5,860,714 to Trump’s 3,151,821. 61.6% to 33.1% exclusive of the other candidates. Thus California gave Hillary the popular vote for all states as claimed by the Democrats and their media stooges. But deduct her California vote from her national vote leaving her with 54,978,783, and deduct Trump’s California vote from his national total, leaving him with 57,113.976, he wins in a landslide in the other 49 states, 51.3% to her 48.7%.

So, in effect, Hillary was elected president of California and Trump was elected president of the rest of the country by a substantial margin.

This exemplifies the wisdom of the Electoral College, to prevent the vote of any one populace state from overriding the vote of the others. Trump’s Campaign Manager, Kellyanne Conway, whose expertise is polling, saw this early on and devised her strategy of “6 pathways to the White House”.
This meant ignoring California, with its huge Democrat majority, and going after the states that would give him the necessary Electoral votes to win, FL, NC, MI, PA, OH, and WI. Worked and our country Will Be Secure - after January 20, 2017.

Do we really want California to elect our Presidents?

One other tidbit: California is one of 11 "welfare states" where there are more people living off the gov't dole than there are working for a living. 

 A perfect example of those who vote for a living.

See also here:

"As of today, according to The New York Times, Hillary Clinton has 62,391,335 votes from all states. She has 1,969,920 votes from the five counties that make up New York City, and 1,893,770 votes from Los Angeles County, California. Donald Trump has 61,125,956 votes from all states, including 461,174 votes from the five counties that make up New York City, and 620,285 votes from L.A. County. In other words, Hillary beat Trump 3,863,690 to 1,081,459 in New York and L.A.; he beat her by 60,044,497 to 58,527,645 in the rest of the country. So Hillary’s margin in the popular vote rests entirely on her margin in two large cities — neither of which was contested by the Trump campaign."

So, she beat him by 2,782,231 votes in those two mega-population liberal conformist gangster areas, and he beat her by 1,516,852 elsewhere; resulting in her beating him overall by only 1,265,379 votes.

BUT then we can also subtract the estimated 7 MILLION illegal, multiple, and dead-people votes from the DEMs listings!

And it's funny how the Green Party "neutral arbiters" ONLY contest the votes in areas which were won by Donald Trump! They aren't paying for recounts in areas won by Clinton!

From here:

The non-profit Americans for Legal Immigration PAC released dozens of pages of documentation noting 46 states have prosecuted or convicted cases of voter fraud, more than 24 million voter registrations are invalid, there are more than 1.8 million dead voters still on rolls and more than 2.75 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state.

The group also said the Florida New Majority Education Fund, Democratic Party of Florida and the National Council of La Raza currently are under investigation for alleged voter registration fraud.

“While Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton try to delegitimize President-elect Trump’s historic win on November 8, 2016, by calling for recounts, their strategy can be quickly turned into a nightmare for the Democratic Party and SEIU political machinery that willfully engaged in mass election fraud using a host of George Soros financed organizations and operatives. Republicans, conservatives, Trump supporters, and all Americans that value fair and secure elections should be encouraged to turn their attention to the vast Democrat voter fraud that made the race much closer than it should have been,” the group said.

“Donald Trump is absolutely correct that large volumes of illegal votes were cast in the 2016 presidential race predominantly for Democrat candidates and illegal immigrants were brought across the borders to reinforce Obama and Hillary Clinton in these elections,” said William Gheen, president of ALIPAC. “Obama himself admitted on video to Spanish language audiences comprised of illegal immigrants that illegals would face no scrutiny or hindrances registering to vote and voting, both of which are felonies and deportable offenses. We will work hard to ensure that American voters are never faced with their votes being stolen and muted by foreign nationals again. Let the contentious and historic 2016 elections be remembered as the point where Americans secured our borders and ballots from illegal immigration!”

Breitbart reported that a prominent left-wing money supplier who gets behind many progressive campaigns had been behind Elias in earlier fights.

The report didn’t say that George Soros was writing checks for the recount battle, but it said Elias, a senior lawyer at Perkins Coie in Washington, which works for Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, previously had been pledged up to $5 million from Soros to fight “restrictive voting laws enacted in recent years by Republican-controlled state governments.”

At the time, the New York Times said Elias specializes in “voter-protection issues” and had been in contact with Soros about a series of lawsuits over the issue.

The report said, “The goal is to try to influence voting rules in states where Republican governors and Republican-led legislatures have enacted election laws since 2010, and to be ready to intervene if additional measures are passed over the next 17 months.”


The Washington Post also had reported at the time on Elias’ supporter: “With a multi-million-dollar commitment from liberal mega-donor George Soros, Elias is challenging laws that, he argues, diminish the impact of important Democratic Party constituencies of African-Americans, Latinos and young people.”

ISLAM IS COMING

... but at least THIS turkey is done at last! 

Pat Condell to Criminal Migrants (and their globalist gangster enablers)

France on the Verge of Total Collapse

From here:

by Guy Millière
November 24, 2016 at 6:30 am

• France did not perceive it at the time, but it placed itself in a trap, and the trap is now closing.
• In the 1970s, the Palestinians began to use international terrorism, and France chose to accept this terrorism so long as France was not affected. At the same time, France welcomed mass-immigration from the Arab-Muslim world, evidently as part of a Muslim wish to expand Islam. France's Muslim population has since grown in numbers while failing to assimilate.
• Polls show that one-third of French Muslims want the full application of Islamic sharia law. They also show that the overwhelming majority of French Muslims support jihad, and especially jihad against Israel, a country they would like to see erased from the face of earth.
• "It is better to leave than flee." -- Sammy Ghozlan, President of the National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism. He was later mugged, and his car was torched. He left.
• Villiers also mentions the presence in "no-go zones" of thousands of weapons of war. He adds that weapons will probably not even have to be used; the Islamists have already won.
• Originally, France's dreams might have been of displacing America as a world power, accessing inexpensive oil, business deals with oil-rich Islamic states, and the prayer of no domestic terrorism.

France is in turmoil. "Migrants" arriving from Africa and the Middle East sow disorder and insecurity in many cities. The huge slum commonly known as the "jungle of Calais" has just been dismantled, but other slums are being created each day. In eastern Paris, streets have been covered with corrugated sheets, oilcloth and disjointed boards. Violence is commonplace. France's 572 "no-go zones," officially defined as "sensitive urban areas", continue to grow, and police officers who approach them often suffer the consequences. Recently, a police car drove into an ambush and was torched while the police were prevented from getting out. If attacked, police officers are told by their superiors to flee rather than retaliate. Many police officers, angry at having to behave like cowards, have organized demonstrations. No terrorist attacks have taken place since the slaughter of a priest in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray on July 26, 2016, but intelligence services see that jihadists have returned from the Middle East and are ready to act, and that riots may break out anywhere, any time, on any pretext.

Although overwhelmed by a domestic situation it barely controls, the French government still intervenes in the world affairs: a "Palestinian state" is still its favorite cause, Israel its favorite scapegoat.

Last Spring, even though both France and the Palestinian territories were in terrible shape, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault anyway declared that it was "urgent" to relaunch the "peace process" and create a Palestinian state. France therefore convened an international conference, held in Paris on June 3. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians were invited to it. The conference was a flop. 

It concluded with a vapid statement about the "imperative necessity" to go "forward."

France did not stop there. The government then decided to organize a new conference in December. This time, with Israel and the Palestinians. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, noting that Israel does not need intermediaries, refused the invitation. Palestinian leaders accepted. Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Authority spokesman congratulated France, adding, not surprisingly, that the Palestinian Authority had "suggested" the idea to the French.

Now Donald Trump is the U.S. president-elect, and Newt Gingrich is likely to play a key role in the Trump Administration. Gingrich said a few years ago that there is no such a thing as a Palestinian people, and added last week that settlements are in no way an obstacle to peace. As such, the December conference looks as if it might be another failure.

French diplomats nevertheless are working with Palestinian officials on a UN resolution to recognize a Palestinian State inside the "1967 borders" (the 1949 armistice lines), but without any peace treaty. 

They are apparently hoping that outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama will not use the American veto at the Security Council, allowing the passage of the resolution. It is not certain at all that Barack Obama will want to end his presidency on a gesture so openly subversive. It is almost certain that France will fail there too. Again.

For many years, France seems to have built its entire foreign policy on aligning itself with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC): 56 Islamic countries plus the Palestinians. Originally, France's dreams might have been of displacing America as a world power, accessing inexpensive oil, business deals with oil-rich Islamic states, and the prayer of no domestic terrorism. All four have been washouts. It is also obvious that France has more urgent problems to solve.

France persists because it is desperately trying to limit problems that probably cannot be solved.

In the 1950s, France was different from what it is now. It was a friend of Israel. The "Palestinian cause" did not exist. The war in Algeria was raging, and a large majority of French politicians would not even have shaken hands with unrepentant terrorists.

Everything changed with the end of the Algerian war. Charles de Gaulle handed Algeria over to a terrorist movement called the National Liberation Front. He then proceeded to create a strategic reorientation of the France's foreign policy, unveiling what he called the "Arab policy of France."

France signed trade and military agreements with various Arab dictatorships. To seduce its new friends, it eagerly adopted an anti-Israel policy. When, in the 1970s, terrorism in the form of airplane hijackings was invented by the Palestinians, and with the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, "the Palestinians" all at once became a "sacred cause" and a useful tool for leverage in the Arab world, France, adopting the "cause," became rigidly pro-Palestinian.

The Palestinians began to use international terrorism, and France chose to accept this terrorism so long as France was not affected. At the same time, France welcomed mass-immigration from the Arab-Muslim world, evidently as part of a Muslim wish to expand Islam. The Muslim population has since grown in numbers, while failing to assimilate.

France did not perceive it at the time, but it placed itself in a trap, and the trap is now closing.

France's Muslim population seems anti-French in terms of Judeo-Christian, Enlightenment values, and pro-French only to the extent that France submits to the demands of Islam. As France's Muslims are also pro-Palestinian, theoretically there should have been no problem. But France underestimated the effects of the rise of extremist Islam in the Muslim world and beyond.

More and more, French Muslims consider themselves Muslim first. Many claim that the West is at war with Islam; they see France and Israel as part of the West, so they are at war with them both. They see that France is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, but they also see that several French politicians maintain ties with Israel, so they likely think that France is not anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian enough.

They see that France tolerates Palestinian terrorism, and seem not to understand why France would fight Islamic terrorism in other places.

To please its Muslims, the French government may believe it has no choice other than to be as pro-Palestinian and as anti-Israel as possible -- even though it looks as if this policy is failing badly in the polls.

The French government undoubtedly sees that it cannot prevent what increasingly looks like a looming disaster. This disaster is already taking place.

Perhaps France's current government is hoping that it might delay the disaster a bit and avoida civil war. Perhaps, they might hope, the "no go zones" will not explode -- at least on their watch.

France today has six million Muslims, 10% of its population, and the percentage is growing. Polls show that one-third of French Muslims want the full application of Islamic sharia law. They also show that the overwhelming majority of French Muslims support jihad, and especially jihad against Israel, a country they would like to see erased from the face of earth.

The leading French Muslim organization, the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, is the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement that should be listed as a terrorist organization for its open wishes to overthrow Western governments.

The Muslim Brotherhood is primarily financed by Qatar, a country that invests heavily in France -- and that has the comfort of its very own U.S. airbase.

Jews are leaving France in record numbers, and these departures do not stop. Sammy Ghozlan, President of the National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism, repeated for many years that, "It is better to leave than flee." He was mugged. His car was torched. He left, and now lives in Israel.

The rest of the French population clearly sees the extreme seriousness of what is happening. Some of them are angry and in a state of revolt; others seem resigned to the worst: an Islamist takeover of Europe.

The next French elections will take place in May 2017. French President François Hollande has lost all credibility and has no chance of being reelected. Whoever comes to power will have a difficult task.

The French seem to have lost confidence in Nicolas Sarkozy, so they will probably choose between Marine Le Pen, Alain Juppé or François Fillon.

Marine Le Pen is the candidate of the far-right National Front.

Alain Juppé is the mayor of Bordeaux, and often campaigns in the company of Tareq Oubrou, imam of the city. Until recently, Tareq Oubrou was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Alain Juppé seems to believe that the present disorder will calm down if France fully submits.

François Fillon will probably be the moderate-right candidate. He recently said that "Islamic sectarianism" creates "problems in France." He also said that if a Palestinian State is not created very soon, Israel will be "the main threat to world peace."

Three years ago, the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut published a book, The Unhappy Identity (L'identité malheureuse), describing the dangers inherent in the Islamization of France and the major disorders that stem from it. Juppé chose a campaign slogan intended to contradict Finkielkraut: "The Happy Identity".

JUST LIKE IN CANADA - TWO SUBMISSIVE SOCIALIST GANGSTER PARTIES, ONE RATIONAL ONE.

Since the publication of Alain Finkielkraut's book, other pessimistic books have been published that became best-sellers in France. In October 2014, columnist Eric Zemmour published The French Suicide (Le suicide français). A few weeks ago, he published another book, A Five-Year Term for Nothing (Un quinquennat pour rien). He describes what he sees happening to France: "invasion, colonization, explosion."

Zemmour defines the arrival of millions of Muslims in France during the last five decades as an invasion, and the recent arrival of hordes of migrants as the continuation of that invasion. He depicts the creation of "no-go zones" as the creation of Islamic territories on French soil and an integral part of a colonization process.

He writes that the eruptions of violence that spread are signs of an imminent explosion; that sooner or later, revolt will gain ground.

Another book, Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow? (Les cloches sonneront-elles encore demain?), was recently published by a former member of the French government, Philippe de Villiers.

Villiers notes the disappearance of churches in France, and their replacement by mosques. He also mentions the presence in "no-go zones" of thousands of weapons of war (AK-47 assault rifles, Tokarev pistols, M80 Zolja anti-tank weapons, etc). He adds that weapons will probably not even have to be used -- the Islamists have already won.

In his new book, Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow?, Philippe de Villiers notes the disappearance of churches in France, and their replacement by mosques. Pictured above: On August 3, French riot police dragged a priest and his congregation from the church of St Rita in Paris, prior to its scheduled demolition. Front National leader Marine Le Pen said in fury: "And what if they built parking lots in the place of Salafist mosques, and not of our churches?" (Image source: RT video screenshot)

On November 13, 2016, France marked the first anniversary of the Paris attacks. Plaques were unveiled every place where people were killed. The plaques read: "In memory of the injured and murdered victims of the attacks." No mention was made of jihadist barbarity. In the evening, the Bataclan Theater reopened with a concert by Sting. The last song of the concert was "Insh' Allah": "if Allah wills." The Bataclan management prevented two members of the US band Eagles of Death Metal -- who were on stage when the attack started -- from entering the concert. A few weeks after the attack, Jesse Hughes, lead singer of the group, had dared to criticize the Muslims involved. The Bataclan's director said about Hughes, "There are things you cannot forgive."

INDEED. FRANCE DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED, THEN COLONIZED BY SANE PEOPLE.

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

.......

First, there is a typo in the article: it's really 752 no-go zones, not 572.

And, Re: "France persists" (in denial) "because it is desperately trying to limit problems that probably cannot be solved" ... "The French government undoubtedly sees that it cannot prevent what increasingly looks like a looming disaster. This disaster is already taking place. Perhaps France's 
current government is hoping that it might delay the disaster a bit and avoid a civil war. Perhaps, they might hope, the "no go zones" will not explode -- at least on their watch."

This is nothing new to France: the French people have always been, as George Bush put it, "Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" since even before the first Crusade. Back when they were actually a Germanic people, their own leader, Big Carl aka Charlemagne, wanted to be accepted as the Roman emperor so badly, that he sacrificed their own culture and language, by riding around his own 
kingdom, smacking his people in the head until they gave in and Submitted to speaking a bastardized 
form of Latin with bad accents (how else did they get "EAU" from "AQUA!"?). And since then, nothing 
has changed: during the Crusades, they sought to COMPROMISE them selves with the muslim Arabs who had invaded the entire formerly GREEK, CHRISTIAN Middle East from their tiny but hellish homeland of Arabia, by marrying muslimas, converting to islam and then bringing their half-breed children back to France with them after their inevitable defeats, possibly comforted by the notion that it's not a defeat when you "chose" to SURRENDER in advance.

Then they invited the Turk into Europe, to help them against their rivals in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Historical French jealousy envy and "revenge" against their neighbours is only matched by their muslim brethren.

So, why were the muslims invited into France THIS TIME?

LE GRAND REMPLACEMENT! Socialist cultural Marxists want to REPLACE Europeans with compliant Third World ‘NOBLE SAVAGES’ who are used to dictatorship and will not speak up when tyranny is imposed.

Europeans are unworthy of socialism, because they believe in individual human rights.

Under socialism only the COLLECTIVITY has rights. In Islam only the UMMAH has rights….which is saying that ‘no one’ has any real-live individual human rights at all; only the inhuman idolatrous group or gang has rights.

Bottom line?

Islam (like liberalism) is carefully-crafted, "pre-emptively defensive," criminal negligence.

It's theodicy (i.e: who to blame, and how to blame them, for when things "inevitably" go wrong)!

Exactly like their muslim brethren, liberals are nihilists who fear the dynamics of life and prefer the "safety" of static death. And they also want to bestow this 'mercy' on everyone else, too. 

As proud masochists, they always pretend to "control" their fears, BY causing those same worst-case-
scenario problems (like, attacking innocent other people) which cause the pains they fear the most.

They presume that, since their own deaths are all "predestined," and "predetermined," and nothing 
they do will change the inevitable outcomes, they might as well keep indulging in delinquency (suicide) here and now, because "Why quit smoking now if you're only going to die in a car accident later anyway?"! 

ENEMEDIA EXPOSED

They don't get paid to learn or listen. They are all presstitute shills owned and paid by the same corporazi globalist traitors to all sovereign nations - the same six companies control all the world's media (extortive propagandist liars).

 Media ownership chart:

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fd9ee1e6bb3f7af5700000a/media-infographic.jpg




Bill Clinton (Nasty Guy) signed the Telecommunications Act into law which allowed for roughly 90 percent of the country’s major media companies to be owned by just six corporations. It is worse than NAFTA. It is an assault on the republic because it created a monopoly on the flow of information in the United States and strengthened the Politico-Media Complex.

WHO OWNS THE U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA?

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S.
General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.


2006 revenues: $163.4 billion
General Electric media-related holdings include television networks NBC and Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, 26 television stations in the United States, and cable networks MSNBC, Bravo and the Sci Fi Channel.


2006 revenues: $44.2 billion
Time Warner is the largest media conglomerate in the world, with holdings including: CNN, the CW (a joint venture with CBS), HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT, America Online, MapQuest, Moviefone, Netscape, Warner Bros. Pictures, Castle Rock, and New Line Cinema, over 150 magazines such as Time, Cooking Light, Marie Claire and People.

Time Warner services 17.9% of all cable subscribers, gaining 3.5 million subscribers from its joint aquisition of Adelphia with Comcast. Time Warner now has 14.4 million cable customers (plus 1.5 million held in partnership with Comcast).


2006 revenues: $34.3 billion
The Walt Disney Company owns the ABC Television Network, cable networks including ESPN, the Disney Channel, SOAPnet, A&E and Lifetime, 227 radio stations, music and book publishing companies, production companies Touchstone, Miramax and Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, the cellular service Disney Mobile, and theme parks around the world.


2006 revenues: $25.3 billion
News Corporation’s media holdings include: the Fox Broadcasting Company, television and cable networks such as Fox, Fox Business Channel, National Geographic and FX, 35 television stations, print publications including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and TVGuide, book publisher HarperCollins, film production companies 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios, and the National Rugby League.


2006 revenues: $14.3 billion
CBS Corporation owns the CBS Television Network, CBS Television Distribution Group, the CW (a joint venture with Time Warner), Showtime, book publisher Simon & Schuster, 27 television stations, and CBS Radio, Inc, which has 140 stations. CBS is now the leading supplier of video to Google’s new Video Marketplace.


2006 revenues: $11.5 billion
Viacom holdings include: Music Television, Nickelodeon, VH1, BET, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, Atom Entertainment, publishing company Famous Music and music game developer Harmonix. Viacom 18 is a joint venture with the Indian media company Global Broadcast news.

ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser.

CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney

ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary

ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood

CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to a lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, who joined the White House counsel’s office in April, 2013.

The Post‘s Justice Department reporter, Sari Horwitz, is married to William B.
Schultz, the general counsel of the Department of Human Services.

[VP] Biden’s current communications director, Shailagh Murray (a former Post
congressional reporter), is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal‘s top political reporters.

1,000-member secretive progressive journalist group uncovered August 6, 2014 has an attached Excel spreadsheet of the members and their organizations.. reads like a roster of radical leftist groups

From Occupy to SEIU to Code Pink to the Metro Justice organization to 99 rise to color of change to Move On to AFL-CIO to Bum Rush the Vote (Occupy) to The Peace and Justice League to Fight for 15 to Forward Together Reproductive Justice student's organization to National People's Action to ROOTS (Roots Action) etc

Here is one Game Changer Salon Member Bio attached that might astound you: School Teacher Mark Rudd co founder of-- Terrorists for Social Responsibility --AKA the Weather Underground -SDS Students for a Democratic Society...who from 1978-2003 was in N Mexico organizing in nuclear peace, education, environmentalism, Central American matters, and Native American issues etc

Like Bill Ayers they all go into schools and education. Surprised, given the state of education.

you can see the Excel spreadsheet yourself here

http://eagnews.org/1000-member-secretive-progressive-journalist-group-uncovered/

http://eagnews.org/names-activities-of-secretive-progressive-journalist-group-revealed/

mediatrackers.org/assets/uploads/2014/08/Gamechanger-Salon.xlsx

http://mediatrackers.org/assets/uploads/2014/08/Movement-Calendar-Calendar-2014.pdf

;-)

EVEN MORE:

THIS is why the LSM won't expose the Dems - because they ARE the Dems!

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/the-real-reason-mainstream-media-protect-hillary/

The real reason 'mainstream media' protect Hillary

Exclusive: David Kupelian on disturbing truth behind WikiLeaks revelations

HOW THE WEST FAILS ITS CHILDREN

ALL so-called "soft" sciences (sociology psychology, even criminology) are only "victimologies" now!

First of all, let's examine and admit the simple, obvious truth, that Western "Liberals" ARE Muslims!

Western libertine "Liberal" criminals hate Christianity because it teaches free will and personal responsibility.

Islam 'teaches' (abuses people with) the exact opposite: idolatrous excuses, where it's never anyone's fault because "the allah made them do it!" No free-will guilt!

The left will never admit islam is a crime-gang and muslims are criminals because, as criminals them selves, leftist gangsters are all about promoting alibis to excuse crimes - their favorite being the "inevitability" of any given worst-case scenario their fearful treasonous and masochistic little minds can dream up.

Masochists always pretend they can "control" their own fears BY causing those very same worst-case scenario problems (like by antagonizing innocent others) which cause the pains they fear the most.

Since they presume that pain causes fear, AND fear causes pain, they seek to eliminate the fear, thus instantly solving half their problems. This automatic Submission to "inevitable" pain, in eliminating the (painful) fear of it, they call practicality, pragmatism and realpolitik.

Submitting to the "unknown and unknowable" chaos of dynamic existence is what is at the heart of the islamic "faith" too (there is no "faith" in islam; the word is almost never found in the Qur'an, they are told not to have faith in "unknown and unknowable allah" because nobody except Muhammad was supposed to have even the faintest clue as to the will of their "god")!

Basically, muslims are, like their liberal brethren, criminals and atheists. That is why they love islam; and they both hate Christianity because it promotes the idea that humans have free will self-reliant choice; at least to the extent that, while whatever goes right is to be credited to God, whatever goes wrong is the fault of human agency and there is thus an onus to correct one's own sinful behavior by repenting of it.

Liberals and muslims like to pretend that there is no real crime and no real criminals or criminality, because everything is allah's fault: since we are all helpless victims (of society, mere products of our environments, and of course slaves of allah) "we (i.e: you) all do it, too!"

ALL Social Sciences = Victimology!

Although many wealthy terrorists major in hard sciences like Engineering and Advanced Bomb-Making101, because of the "diverse" nature of Western college and university requirements, they are also expected to pad their studies with mandatory courses in the "soft" sciences, like sociology, psychology and even criminology - all of which are nothing more than propaganda venues for VICTIMOLOGY because they start and end by looking for "causes" of human behaviours ... thus implicitly ignoring the real cause: free-will choice!

Garbage-in, garbage-out!

Sociologists, psychologists and even criminologists no longer seek merely to study and describe human activities: they must now all seek out the "hidden causes" behind them, too!

This pre-existing presumption being that, no matter what one chose to do, one was secretly being forced to do so by some hidden, "inevitable" or magical force!

In other words, the soft sciences only make up endless excuses for crime!

Marxists openly call this "Historical Predeterminism" and sociologists call it being "victims" of "society" and mere "products of our environments;" while their muslim brethren proudly proclaim that they are all helpless "slaves of allah!"

So to Western "educated" liberals, there are no real "crimes" nor "criminals," because we're all really ever only victims! To them, the only real "crime" remaining is to accuse some poor victim of being a "criminal" simply because they were "forced" (aka chose) to commit an "accident" (aka crime) against some innocent other person or people.

To "educated" liberals, "since" life is too complex for anyone to ever really be able to understand cause-and-effect, all so-called objective "facts" are really ever only subjective opinions - such that their entirely fact-free opinions are to be legally held to be the diversely opposite equals to those silly conservatives' "facts!"

This is like saying "Since I'm proud that I can't understand anything, neither can you!" It's a declaration of mental incompetence raised to a "science!"

Such intellectually and morally delinquent, criminally negligent libertine "Liberals" insist that YES they ARE entitled to their own facts, not only to their own opinions!

And if you don't like them asserting their opinions are facts (which is otherwise known as "lying" and criminal "fraud") then you're the real "hateful bigot" and "criminal" and should be silenced and imprisoned!

After all, they (or, more likely, their parents) paid a lot of money to people who claimed to be smart, to say that they were smart, too!

AND THIS IS THE SAME WESTERN "EDUCATION SYSTEM" WHICH INDOCTRINATES THE MEDIA:

The enemedia presstitutes are totally against others' free speech rights; to them, we have no right to defend our selves from their gangs of feral SJWs.

If we are not self-defined victims, proud to form into collectivist gangs for our "protection" - if we don't love to GO ALONG (with criminal lies) TO GET ALONG (with all the other lying criminals) then to them we deserve to DIE.

The MSM jackals have always been paid slanderous victimology-selling gangsters, extorting their "oppressor" victims all the time! They simply don't get paid by their corporazi globalist owners and masters to listen to, or learn from, facts. The enemedia are gangster EXTORTIONISTS, slandering their “oppressor” victims into giving them endless concessions until we all finally Submit to their globalist corporazi owners and masters’ whims; aka "cry-BULLIES."

In reality, people really only join ever-larger gangs to increase their 'rightful' ability to use force to extort other people, and to dilute their personal responsibility. They increase their rights at the expense of others' by offloading their own responsibilities onto their victims, by taking away their rights to defend them selves, selling victimology via white-guilt slander.

This is why so many of these self-interested criminal hypocrites advocate that suicidal masochism is the highest virtue (for others but not for them)!

It explains their lemming-like rush to throw all sovereign nations over the cliff of globalism. They want to profit from the fire-sales of others' property.

But in reality, it's obvious that good fences make for good neighbours, and only criminals with agendas hate other people's boundaries!

Clintons Launch Soros' PURPLE REVOLUTION in America

From here:

The Clintons And Soros Launch America’s Purple Revolution  

by Tyler Durden, ZEROHEDGE

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to «go quietly into that good night». On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic «Blue America» and Republican «Red America» into a united purple blend.This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros’s «Purple Revolution» in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama.The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

It is doubtful that President Trump’s aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation,and Mrs. Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump’s most loyal supporters.

America’s globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military «experts» opposed Trump’s candidacy, Trump is «required» to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such «experts» among Trump’s inner circle of advisers.Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush’s White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions.

George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump’s White House team. There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump’s senior- and middle-level positions.

HEADS WILL ROLL WHEN TRUMP EXPOSES OBAMA'S IRAN NUKE DEAL!

From here:

When the Trump Team Comes Looking for the Secrets of Obama’s Iran File  

BY CLAUDIA ROSETT, PJ MEDIA

Thursday’s cordial meeting between President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama was a reassuring ritual of democracy. But Obama was far from convincing when he told Trump “we are now going to do everything we can to help you succeed.” There are some highly disparate ideas here about what constitutes success, both foreign and domestic. There are also big areas in which one might reasonably wonder if Obama and his team are in a quandary over the prospect of a Trump administration inheriting the internal records of the most transparent administration ever.

Take, for instance, the Iran nuclear deal, Obama’s signature foreign policy legacy, the chief accomplishment of his second term. The Obama administration’s Iran file has been a realm of murk, crammed with dangerous concessions and secret side deals for terror-sponsoring Tehran — to a degree that has left some critics wondering if Obama’s real aim was to empower Iran as the hegemon of the Middle East (equipped with ballistic missiles to complement its “exclusively peaceful” nuclear program).

The cherry on top — officially separate from the nuclear deal, but highly coincident — was the Obama administration’s secret conveyance to Iran early this year of cash totaling $1.7 billion for the settlement of an old claim against the United States.

Like Obama’s other legacy achievement, the unaffordable Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, these Iran dealings were so intricate, extensive and opaque that we are still discovering just how duplicitous the official narratives were. Obama never submitted the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty for ratification by the Senate. Instead, he rushed the deal to the United Nations Security Council for approval less than a week after the final text was announced, and left Congress wrestling through the ensuing weeks, during the summer of 2015, to try to extract vital details from the elusive Obama and his team, subject to a legislative bargain so convoluted that the process, and the deal, never came to a vote.

For simplicity’s sake, let’s focus on the $1.7 billion “settlement” paid to Iran, which Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, apparently with no prior notice to Congress, announced this past January.  Obama and Kerry did not mention at the time that the administration was shelling out the funds in cash, to be airlifted into Iran — a form of payment especially handy for Iran’s illicit ventures, such as terrorism and procurement for its ballistic missile program (the usual role of ballistic missiles — which Iran has continued testing — being to carry nuclear weapons, which Obama has assured us Iran under his deal is not developing).

Obama and his team also neglected to mention that $1.3 billion of his administration’s cash bonanza for Tehran had come from the pockets of American taxpayers, via an obscure channel at Treasury called the Judgment Fund. It took months before such specifics came to light, which they did thanks not to the administration, but to the efforts of the press, and a number of persistent questioners in Congress — to whom the administration sent tardy and evasive replies.

Questions continue to swirl around this cash-for-Iran arrangement. Was it a ransom for American prisoners released by Iran on the same day the Obama administration announced the $1.7 billion settlement? (The Obama administration has repeatedly asked the public to swallow the logical fallacy that because it is not U.S. policy to pay ransom, this was not a ransom).

Why did the administration — until outed in August and September in a series of stories by the press — make a secret of the cash, the conduits and the dates of delivery? What were — what are — the full terms of this confidential arrangement? Which, according to a Sept. 29 report in The Wall Street Journal,included, as part of a package of three secret documents signed in Geneva, U.S. backing for the lifting of UN sanctions on two Iranian state banks blacklisted for financing Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Why have the relevant texts of all this wheeling and dealing been kept secret? Why has the administration repeatedly stonewalled questions from Congress? What were the machinations behind Obama’s claim, after The Wall Street Journalon August 3 broke the story of the first tranche of $400 million in cash for Iran, that the U.S. government had no choice but to pay Iran with a mountain of hard-currency banknotes? Based on what internal calculus did the administration refuse to provide public confirmation for another few weeks — until after the news broke in the press — that the additional $1.3 billion in taxpayers funds had also been paid in cash? On the basis of what information, precisely, did Attorney General Loretta Lynch certify that Treasury paying out those tax dollars to Iran was in the interest of the United States?

The government of terror-sponsoring Iran knows the answers to many of these questions. The American public does not. But we can reasonably speculate that as this cash-for-Iran saga unfolded, it left a trail of records within the Obama administration. Classified, quite likely — but surely there are some illuminating documents that someone with the proper clearances might wish to read.

Once upon a time, we would have called this a paper trail; these days it would more likely be digital. But at the very least, there ought to be the secret texts, the related justifications, requisitions and all the to-and-fro that would presumably be involved in the State Department, the Pentagon and Treasury (at the behest of the Justice Department, on behalf of State, with the blessing of President Obama), secretly organizing cash shipments totaling $1.7 billion for Iran — and then, for months, despite persistent questions from Congress and the press, covering it up. Add to that the overlap — or was it, as appears more likely, the coordination? — of all that clandestinely conveyed cash with the return of American hostages. Then amplify this scene dramatically, to include the manufacturing of the mothership Iran nuclear deal itself, and the related handling of sanctions (which, as the 2014-2015 Iran talks stretched out from the initially planned six months to 17, appeared, despite administration protests to the contrary, to be ever more casually enforced).

Which brings us back to America’s presidential election a mere three days ago, in which it sure looks like Obama and his team were blind-sided by Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton. Misled by their own narratives, by their echo chamber in the press, by erroneous polls, by the same arrogance that begat the presidential rule of pen-and-phone and Ben-Rhodes-narratives, Obama and his team were expecting a handover to Hillary. She might not agree with them on everything, but as a former insider herself, as a candidate who was running to continue Obama’s trajectory and cement his legacies, she wasn’t someone whose access to the Iran file was likely to cause anyone currently in the White House to lose sleep (provided she’d really ditched her non-secure home-server proclivities).

And then Hillary lost.

Instead, here comes Trump. It’s a good bet that until Tuesday night, the Obama White House never expected any such imminent intrusion by the Trump team into its closets. Trump has called the Iran nuclear deal “disastrous,” and has said, variously, that he’ll dismantle the Iran nuclear deal, or renegotiate it. On Thursday, one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers, Walid Phares, told CNN that Trump will demand changes in the deal.

Whatever Trump does with the Iran deal, once he takes office he’s entitled to have access to what’s actually in it — preserved in full, including any secret documents, understandings, promises or related bargains. This should include information that holds the answers to a great many lingering questions, among them the full rationale and terms of Obama’s prolific concessions to Iran — not least, the $1.7 billion cash payola to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Even with such access, assuming the records are in good-faith preserved and turned over in full, disentangling the truth from the Obama narrative could be complicated. Andy McCarthy, on PJMedia, warns the Trump transition teamagainst trusting Obama’s politicized intelligence on ISIS and al-Qaeda. It would be folly to rule out similar bias on Iran.

But if Obama has any desire to see his signature Iran deal sustained, presumably he, or his team, will have to divulge to his successor whatever his end of this bargain actually and fully entails, beneath the narrative and behind the official gloss. Otherwise, with no particular help from Trump, the deal may implode anyway. For Obama, during this transition period, it is, one might suppose, an unexpected and not entirely comfortable choice.

PS: TRUMP KNOWS MORE ABOUT FOREIGN AFFAIRS THAN YOU KNOW.



TRUMP TO DESIGNATE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION