This is how stupid they think you really are. 

On Nov. 9, Let’s Forget Donald Trump Happened

With Donald Trump’s chances of winning the White House narrowing, it’s not too soon to ask: If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in November, what attitude should Democrats and Republicans alike take toward Trump voters? It will be tempting to excoriate or patronize them, or to woo them to your cause. But all of these approaches would be mistaken. A much better strategy — for both parties — is to engage in selective memory, and to treat Trump voters as though the whole sorry episode of his candidacy never occurred.

That may seem counterintuitive, especially because there’s no doubt that Trump’s candidacy shows the system needs fixing. But it’s based on the solid intuition that Trump voters, many of them alienated already from mainstream party politics, will only be further alienated by anything that associates them with a candidate whose brand was victory and who delivered defeat.

Even assuming a convincing Clinton win, many, many Americans are going to vote for Trump on Nov. 8. They will do so for various reasons, and I don’t want to make the mistake of assuming that those reasons can be captured in a few sentences.

What can be said definitively about Trump voters is that they will have judged that, whatever his flaws and demerits, he was a better pick than Clinton. That doesn’t necessarily mean all Trump voters will have thought Trump should be president; if the polls are sufficiently lopsided on Election Day, it will be logically possible to vote for him as a protest.

But it does mean at a minimum that the voter wanted to communicate that Trump’s vision is preferable to Clinton’s.

This brute fact about what Trump voters must be trying to say could lead to some potentially dangerous responses from those who don’t vote for Trump. One characteristic risk would be moral outrage. Democrats might be tempted to say that anyone who voted for Trump has bad morals and belongs in the much-discussed “basket of deplorables.” The Republican version of moral outrage against Trump voters would be to say that the candidate’s words (and maybe conduct) around sexual morality made him undeserving of election, and that anyone who voted for him must share his morals.

But moral outrage would be a moral mistake. Plenty of Democrats who don’t care for Bill Clinton’s personal sexual conduct voted for him — twice. Lest we forget, it’s a credible (if today highly unpopular) view that a candidate’s sexual morality is irrelevant to his or her qualifications for the presidency. That view may be wrong, but it isn’t inherently morally outrageous.

As for condemning a Trump voter morally for endorsing a candidate who has called for immoral policies toward Latinos and Muslims, this, too, assumes that Trump voters necessarily share his views. Of course, some may applaud the things Trump has said. But it’s also morally permissible to vote for someone who has expressed moral views with which you strongly disagree. Otherwise, it would have been immoral for some Democrats to vote for Barack Obama when he still opposed gay marriage. Put another way, voting always means picking and choosing between candidates who don’t share all of the voter’s views.

Patronizing Trump voters would also be a mistake — practically, rather than morally. The risk of condescension is especially great given polls that suggest Trump is doing better with white voters who don’t have a college degree than other Republican candidates have done. It will be tempting to think — as some havealready argued — that Trump voters have been hoodwinked by a skilled salesman.

Democrats and Republicans alike would do well to remember that whites without college degrees have been especially vulnerable to the reduction in manufacturing jobs in recent decades. Their historically high support for Trump can be explained by the sense that Trump is drawing attention to their political and economic concerns. That’s a perfectly justifiable reason to vote for someone, no matter what you might think about the rest of his policies or his character.

That leads to the final temptation, namely to try to win over Trump voters either by crafting policies aimed at saving the white lower-middle class or by using Trump-like dog-whistle politics that scapegoat immigrants and minorities. The former is at least an admirable goal — but only provided it can be accomplished realistically, without doing much more harm than good, for example by adopting extreme protectionism and starting a trade war with China. The latter isn’t even admirable — and worse, it won’t work, at least not at the national level.

The alternative is to treat Trump voters as though they were ordinary, rational voters choosing among policy options available to them. That will require pretending retrospectively that this election wasn’t somehow special or distinctive, and that Trump wasn’t a uniquely dangerous candidate.

That would be a noble lie, well worth it to help Trump voters feel more connected to a polity that will (hypothetically) have rejected their candidate. The last thing the U.S. needs is for large numbers of citizens to feel that they’ve been morally repudiated for supporting Trump. The country doesn’t need more cultural condescension toward white people who didn’t go to college. And it doesn’t need pandering to those who voted for Trump, either.

Come Election Day, we should vote as though this election matters more than others. Fundamental political structures and morality really are at stake. And on Nov. 9, we should go back to pretending it never happened, and that in the words of Sinclair Lewis, it can’t happen here.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:Noah Feldman

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stacey Shick

The Three False Flag Cyber Attacks Came From Obama, Not Russia


The hacking of American corporate websites (e.g. Netflix, Amazon, et al), is being sold to the American public as the work of Russian hackers working with the knowledge, support and permission of Putin. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. I began to acquire the REAL story about the hacking on Friday evening, October 21, from three separate cover sources that claimed to have all/part of the story. There is so much disinformation in the air right now (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post), I was not about to throw caution to the wind and report on this possibility until I felt I had exhausted all of my sources of information.

A clear pattern of an emerging false flag attack plan is emerging from the current administration. Yes, that is correct, operating under the auspices of the Obama administration, the three waves of cyber attacks were carried out by covert Obama operatives, presumably operating under the order of key figures who pull his strings.

Hillary Clinton’s Debate #3 Admonition of Russian Hacking Was the First REAL Salvo In this PSYOPS Conditioning Process

During the third debate, Hillary Clinton was put on the extreme defensive when debate moderator Chris Wallace quoted from a speech Clinton had previously delivered to NWO-serving Brazilian bankers. Wallace strengthened the sting of his question when he referenced the fact that the quote was reported on by WikiLeaks.

Clinton failed to answer the question, instead she blamed the Russian government for the leaks due to Putin sponsored hackers. In the most inane defense of herself, ever heard on a Presidential debate stage, she went on to proclaim that “the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans, hacking American websites, American accounts of private people and related institutions. Clinton further went on to say that “in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.” That fact has since be debunked by various fact-checkers.

As a momentary aside, Clinton’s answer demonstrated to the world that despite her PUBLIC position, of opposing trade agreements, her PRIVATE position is to fully support them and the loss of tens of millions of American jobs that goes with the practice. Please permit me one more digression. To all Democrats that have children living at home, please consider the following: Any Democrat who supports the lawless, corrupt and morally bankrupt despot, Hillary Clinton, should not hold their children accountable for their actions. Anyone that supports Clinton has given their children tacit approval to lie, cheat, steal and worse.

If Not the Russians, Then Who Hacked American Websites?

Conventional wisdom by former ARSOP, JSOC and cyber experts that I have communicated with all say that the origination point was launched from Ft. Meade and routed through a series of remote VPN servers which leads back to Moscow. Two deep cover sources mentioned Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora, Colorado. I was told that the origination point of the attack could be better hidden if it came from space and if a Russian satellite could be hacked and made to look like the origination point. Buckley is part of the eyes and ears of the US Space Command. Following this, the Russians could be blamed at a later date. It is there that an incubating and incriminating foot print was created that will not be detected by the Russians until it is too late to hidden from the rest of the world.

My Sources Want This Information to Be Released

When I have relied on proven, but covert sources in the past, it has always been my experience that some will not have the answer I am looking for, but some will. Some will be comfortable in telling what they know and some will not. I have never had unanimity on a story before, until now. All of my sources contacted for this story agree on several points:

  1. The Obama administration is undoubtedly the source of the attacks. Nobody believes that this was contracted out to a 3rd party for security reasons.
  2. The attacks are intimately related to the upcoming election. I was told that despite the relentless and mostly baseless attacks on Trump, that the numbers that support Trump are going up. I was reminded that we witnessed this phenomenon during the GOP primary campaign
  4. I have been told to be on the lookout for the mass transfer of wealth by organizations such as Goldman Sachs (GS). GS will have advanced knowledge of the coming economic collapse, by cyber attack, and they will move assets. I reminded my sources that GS moved heavily into gold at the same time as did Buffet and Soros. They said there will still be more movement of wealth transfer. Further, I was reminded of something that I reported on back in 2012. Bank of America and Wells Fargo are insured by the Federal Reserve, courtesy of the US taxpayer. to the tune of $75 trillion each for their exposure to the credit swap derivatives debt. Therefore, a complete collapse of the banking system should be expected in the coming cyber attack. This will be the main trigger to get people to accept war with Russia, because Putin will be blamed.
  5. What order will this happen in? As stated and undoubtedly, the first REAL targets of this cyber false flag, will unquestionably be the banks and Wall Street. However, two of my sources believe that the grid will be the first REAL target and the rest (i.e. Wall Street and the banks) will follow as a matter of course. In my book, it is basically the same effect and it does not matter which comes first.
  6. The cyber false flag attacks this past week were designed to create a Russian footprint in the minds of the American people so when their daily lives are horribly disrupted, we will accept AROL, or Continuity of Government, which is a new form of martial law, without resorting to widespread resistance against the administration. Hillary Clinton’s debate comments against the Russians were no more than a feeble attempt to discredit Trump but the real purpose was to plant the seed in millions of American minds in order to get them to accept the inevitable.
  7. I asked when the war would go nuclear? I was told, very early on in the conflict. There is concern that if too many nukes go off around the planet, we could suffer from nuclear winter in which sunlight is blocked from reaching the earth. Plants will die and the mass of humanity will starve. The chills went down my spine. This is why the criminal elite have dug tunnels under DIA and elsewhere.


Why would Obama do this? Can you say “third term” if Clinton cannot win?

I hope you are all as prepared as possible, the elite are prepared and you should be too. The good news is that we will not have long to wait.

Originally Posted at

Charges against Sheriff Joe ‘Orwellian beyond imagination,’ says author

DOJ charged Arpaio for enforcing federal immigration law
Paul Bremmer
File photo of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announcing a newly launched program aimed at providing security around schools in Anthem, Arizona
When the U.S. Department of Justice filed criminal contempt charges against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Oct. 17, accusing the well-known lawman of intentionally violating a federal judge’s order not to arrest illegal aliens without evidence they had broken state law, it was beyond even the imagination of George Orwell.

So says Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review.

“Our Founders are rolling over in their graves at the sight of a sheriff being placed on trial for taking common sense steps to protect his state’s sovereignty and applying federal law in cases of reasonable suspicion – laws over which Congress, not the judiciary, has plenary authority,” Horowitz declared in a recent column.

Federal judge Susan Bolton requested the criminal charges at a hearing the previous week. In August, Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court of Arizona had referred Arpaio for misdemeanor criminal contempt charges for not obeying a previous court injunction against his practice of apprehending those he reasonably suspected of being in the country illegally.

The injunction grew out of a 2007 class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund accusing Arpaio of racial profiling.

Horowitz noted the Arizona sheriff is essentially being punished for enforcing federal immigration law within his jurisdiction while violent criminal aliens remain on the run all over Arizona. He called the situation “Orwellian beyond imagination.”

“While thousands of criminal aliens are being released onto the streets of Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio is the one who is facing the prospect of jail time,” Horowitz said. “There is something fundamentally wrong when a state like Arizona is being destroyed by a foreign invasion and local elected officials are hamstrung from defending the state, even though they are following federal law. At the same time, sanctuary cities that thwart federal immigration law are being rewarded by the federal judiciary.”

This is the type of juxtaposition Horowitz writes about in his book “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.”

“While Arpaio admits to mistakenly violating the injunction, the broader question is how a federal court can issue an injunction against sovereignty laws of a nation using … you guessed it … the Fourteenth Amendment,” Horowitz said. “Arpaio was acting according to federal law, which requires the federal government to respond to state inquiries on an individual’s immigration status [8 U. S. C. §1373c]. Yet, he is potentially facing jail time while illegal aliens chanted ‘Si se puede! Si se puede!’ outside the court house. This is an image and a perverse juxtaposition even Orwell could never have imagined.”


Thousands of California Soldiers Forced to Repay Enlistment Bonuses a Decade after Going to WarShort of troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago, the California National Guard enticed thousands of soldiers with bonuses of $15,000 or more to reenlist and go to war.

Now the Pentagon is demanding the money back.

Nearly 10,000 soldiers, many of whom served multiple combat tours, have been ordered to repay large enlistment bonuses — and slapped with interest charges, wage garnishments and tax liens if they refuse — after audits revealed widespread overpayments by the California Guard at the height of the wars last decade.

Investigations have determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials under pressure to meet enlistment targets.

Read more