Connect with us

Latest

Red Pill

Analysis

What might the Clinton plan be for getting rid of Trump?

Published

on

1,419 Views

Clinton is not the snore that she appears to be.

She’s a radical, an adept of the Hegelian doctrine of the state knowing what’s best for the individual and for the family. The notion that, “Father knows best,” is a relic. Stone Age vintage.  While Hegel’s disciples may have extended his philosophy to opposite hemispheres – to the Protestant Right and to the Marxist Left – little in Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, or in her subsequent, expressed views, suggests anything but a militant Marxist perspective.

Brandishing hellfire assuredness, which some believe only the Devil can instill, she is still quite certain, despite advancing years, that with enough patience the radicalization of cultural and educational institutions will bring about the needed transformation of America prior to the advent of HER New World Order. The new dawn will see her ruling above all and everything.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

When her husband ran the show, Hillary was actively working to transform the US into a collectivist state through organizations like the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). “Operate in stealth from within,” remains a favorite axiom.

There’s only one problem with Hillary’s core identity.

Radicalism doesn’t win presidential elections. Every pundit will tell you: “Winning demands middle-of-the-road stature with just the right dash of populism.” In fact, it was the image that Bill Clinton successfully portrayed to dupe the electorate in 1992. Through their co-reign over America, Hillary zealously began injecting the radical left agenda (RLA) into diverse organizations as Bill pushed hard for globalism.

Hence, the dilemma for Hillary. She’s a radical but not the actor needed to play the middle-of-the-road game. Her heart – physicians claim she has one – wasn’t into it. At least not with a sufficient pulse or pressure to motivate even paid “volunteers.” Unlike the used car salesman at her side disguised as US President, she wasn’t enough of a hypocrite. She doesn’t have Obama’s talent at pushing hot air to get snake-oil sales. The more she presses, the more the fake laugh doesn’t fly.

Indeed, starting with the Billy-Hillary regime, the ideology of the RLA has been infiltrating the ideological vacuum in the Democratic Party. Considering the moral decay of the Washington Establishment and of politically, watered-down, Bush types, the RLA also has had little opposition among establishment Humpties and Dumpties.

It hasn’t been all downhill for the RLA. With respect to LGBTq-ism, for instance, a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats have vetoed legislation to advance LGBTq-ism. Their respective constituencies wouldn’t have it any other way. But how many of the same legislators have sought to counter LGBT promotional efforts by introducing legislation that would equate teaching the LGBTq agenda to second graders with pedophilia? Without enough of a political counterweight, the Democratic Party has been advancing in-your-face, Godless planks – the RLA seeks spiritual dominance – to replace traditional family ethics and God’s laws with its own laws.

The idea is to repackage biblical morals and to export them as a humanist, New Age Religion, throughout the world. The New Religion of the RLA repackages homosexuality as love between two humans conforming with the commandment of Jesus: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” regardless of gender. It’s not an “abomination” as scripture expressly states. RLA ideology has become theology – the spiritual component of George H.W. Bush’s New World Order.

Snowflakes routinely insult Trump’s intelligence yet he was apparently smarter than Clinton because he won. He was certainly sensitive enough and he had the right instinct to tap into the pulse of the nation’s distrust of her and her thinly-veiled, RLA planks.

Despite the best efforts of Clinton’s attendant media to sequester her shortcomings, she couldn’t fill a high school gym with paid volunteers while Trump was stretching college arenas, football stadiums and other venues to capacity. Tailgate parties comforted those who couldn’t be squeezed in. The sizes of Trump’s audiences were rarely mentioned by “news” stations. In this respect, Trump’s claim about CNN-Clinton collusion to downplay the support that he was getting is more than justified. YouTube amateur videos allowed anyone interested to gauge Trump’s draw strength. And for anyone who witnessed the buzz, it was apparent that an upset was possible.

What actually happened? 

Clinton lost because America was not ready for her, radical, collectivist vision. She couldn’t talk about it, outright, so she came across as having nothing of substance to say – as the boring, plastic lawyer-politician. The best lighting and makeup could not sequester media manipulation and topic tampering. It was specifically because she was shielded from controversial topics that she came across as a bland, listless figure. Her core faithful made it through the campaign by popping No-Doz, if not something stronger, to no end.  Enough cameras caught sight of the fainting spells. Rumors about a possible degenerative disease like Alzheimer’s didn’t help. The image of aides propping her up didn’t exactly coincide with the image of a robust Commander-in-Chief. 

In contrast to Hillary’s blasé campaign, Trump raised real, hurt issues within working America. Mostly, he projected energy. Although far from eloquent, his kitchen speech was understood by the masses, many of whom had not voted in years. Adding a few ideas of his own – which is a few more than Hillary introduced – Trump won.

Indeed, it shouldn’t have happened. Everything from the beast of the political system to the military industrial complex, as well as the Hollywood-US media syndicate, worked overtime against him. Even Bush and his CIA brotherhood refused to accept the non-establishment figure. More than one billion dollars in PAC money was stacked up against him. One can only speculate on the actual money-under-the-table sum. Nearly every mainstream newspaper endorsed Clinton. So did nearly every major television station. Illegal immigrants rode the carousels in swarms to vote several times for Clinton.  Even dead souls were resurrected. It was quite a ghoulish election night.

The tip of the carousel scandal eventually pierced Hillary’s pampered bottom when Democrats, through Jill Stein of the Green Party, backed a recount in the State of Michigan. Trump won the State by only 22,000 votes.  Curiously, the recount was abruptly halted and the media began to hush it up when results from the city of Detroit, revealed massive voting fraud in Clinton’s favor. 95% of Detroit voters voted for Clinton. Theoretically, it’s possible. But the recount revealed that voting machines in 248 of Detroit’s 662 precincts (37%) tabulated significantly more votes than the number of people who had signed in to vote. America’s a free country. Only in America do dead souls drive cars and planes, draw on Medicare, and vote in presidential elections.

“There’s always going to be small problems, to some degree, but we didn’t expect the degree of the problem we saw in Detroit. This isn’t normal,” Krista Haroutunian, Chairwoman of the county electoral commission, stated to the press. “Massive voter irregularities,” ran the NY Post headline. President Trump called the entire election “rigged in Clinton’s favor.” So-called Russian influence in the election was a tactic concocted by Clinton’s strategists, well in advance of election night. Since no proof of Russian meddling was ever presented, Clinton came across as a sore and dishonest loser.

At the Trump-Clinton debate in Nevada, Trump was asked by Chris Wallace if he would accept the election result. The question was stacked against Trump because it implied that he would be the eventual loser. Wallace said that there is a tradition in the country for the peaceful transition of power, “for the loser to concede to the winner the election result no matter how hard fought the campaign might be.” The cameras saw a smirking Clinton, bobbing her head in total agreement at the mention of “tradition,” ever-so-certain that she was of victory. When Trump said that he would decide later, whether or not to accept the result, Clinton chirped that Trump’s readiness to break with tradition is, “Horrifying.” 

The NY Times, propaganda machine headlined the next day: “Donald Trump Won’t Say if He’ll Accept Result of Election.” The opening paragraph reads: “In a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy, Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he might not accept the results of next month’s election if he felt it was rigged against him — a stand that Hillary Clinton blasted as “horrifying. 

“Horrifying?” His statement, “cast doubt on American democracy?”

A curious twist of fate, is it not? Two years have elapsed since the election and Clinton has not accepted the result, despite conceding defeat. Apparently, Obama, Biden, Soros, and other leading lights have also been unable to swallow the bitter pill of America saying, “No,” to Madame Hillary and the RLA. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is “casting doubt on American democracy?” Does she see anything “horrifying” when she looks at herself?

Indeed, Trump wasn’t supposed to win. The entire electoral system, including the corrupt Establishment from both political Parties and their attendant presstitutes sided against Trump. The Bush family led the charge against him from the “Republican” side of the aisle. They, too, have since confirmed their unwillingness to accept democracy, considering that Trump made mincemeat out of Jeb Bush in the primaries. All of it shouldn’t have happened, which is why the election night turnaround was a true miracle – perhaps, the most thrilling result in 150-plus years. Poll projection manipulations failed to coronate Clinton. It was genuine democracy, the popular will of the people – something that had been lacking, for so long. Voters saw through it all.

The RLA introduced during the joint reign of Bill and Hillary, slowed down during the Bush years. It came out of the closet under Obama. Nonetheless, the corrosive influence of the RLA has been eating away at the social fabric of America since the radical 60s when Hillary was salivating over the Luciferian ideals of Saul Alinsky, her “college mentor.” That’s Lucifer aka Satan or the Devil. 

Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” is a primer for overturning society. It’s dedicated to Lucifer who Alinsky honors on the dedication page as “the first radical.” Clinton only differs from Alinsky in one major way. She always believed that the system can be changed from within. And she has been at it ever since Billy made it to the White House. What did he address, first? Apparently, nothing was more life-line important than the issue of gays in the military. Americans weren’t aware it was an issue until Clinton’s made it one.

Credit her determination. Hillary has held true to the RLA course and she has succeeded in advancing radicalism from within. Is the world a better place for it?

Perhaps, one should ask the families of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of innocents who were killed by way of US policies and armaments in Serbia, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Ukraine, in Iraq, in Somalia, in Pakistan, in Yemen, and in Syria. What has Obama-Clinton & Clinton adventurism brought to these nations?

Taking note of how the War Party profits from blood, the Bush-Cheney, crime syndicate followed up on the model. In this respect, its arm-in-arm with Clinton Murder, Inc., with the Establishment Swamp, and with Peace Laureate Obama – the first, two-term president to have the honor of being at war for all eight years. Quite the distinction. Are Americans better off domestically or internationally because of War Party deeds? Let it not be forgotten that America is in the sights of a RLA transformation. Will it happen? Not likely, under Trump. It has been said that Satan always gets his due. Scary, is it not?

In the past, election wounds healed because of debate, patience, tolerance, and compromise – balm for the passions. Besides, differences between Republicans and Democrats were never significant. Anybody from the establishment can become president and every four years another anybody has been elected. President Anybody kept God at arm’s length and he didn’t encroach on the family regarding how to rear children. It was always, “Father knows best. 

To sum up, Obama-Clinton are categorically at odds with Christian tenets, with traditional family values, and with the libertarian ideals on which the US was founded. That is, they’re against liberty for the masses as the core principle, they’re against maximum, political freedom, and they’re against individual freedom of choice despite statements to the contrary.

Obama-Clinton collectivists are little different than Bolsheviks in the sense that they seek liberty for themselves and equality for the masses. History is a witness of the catchphrase lie: “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” Where equality exists there is not much liberty or fraternity and, certainly, not much prosperity. In every knot of history, otherwise referred to as revolutions, a ruling elite feeds on the blood and passions of the hoi polio until the privileged, inner circle consumes itself. Need anyone be reminded what Bolshevism did to Russia and to neighboring nations? Enough Americans saw through the Hillary façade to say, “No thank you,” to her RLA. Today, Trump is a finger in the dike restraining it.

What might the Clinton plan be for getting rid of Trump? Fact or fiction, the Clinton body count is impressive. 

See Part 1

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
5 Comments

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
LeaHelga FellayCudwieserJPHTheCelotajs Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
TheCelotajs
Guest
TheCelotajs

Hillary Clinton is one evil bitch. She has been all her life and would make Joseph Stalin look like a Saint.

JPH
Guest
JPH

Article seems waste of space. Apart from wanting power and money Clinton is far too close Wall Street Banks and corrupt money schemes like Pay-to-Play Clinton foundation to make this writer’s assertions about Clinton adhering to any ideology credible. Yes, Clinton knows to cater to a certain public to win their votes but that’s simply a tactic and nothing to do with her ideology which is egocentric to the hilt.

Cudwieser
Guest
Cudwieser

Bill, Hill and Chill (Chelsea) will be irradicated if anythinhg happens to Trump, just as a matter of reflex. What happens after is beyond imagination.

Helga Fellay
Guest
Helga Fellay

The Hillary this author describes can’t possibly be the same women the rest of us love to hate – there is nothing “left” about this neocon/neoliberal war hawk who is Henry Kissinger’s best buddy and never saw a war she didn’t like. She destroyed Honduras, Libya and the Ukraine. Her defining moment will always be that video interview when she said with glee “we came, we saw, he died hahahahaha” describing the torture and murder by being sodomized with a sword of the great pan-African leader Gaddafi – with utter amusement, something which only a completely soulless sociopath could do.

Lea
Guest
Lea

Does the author even know what a Marxist perspective is? Honestly, please American authors, try to educate yourselves before you write. In the eyes of any educated European, what you write comes out sounding like gibberish. Not to mention that you only add to the general confusion.
Words have definitions, and by no stretch of imagination is Hillary Clinton a Marxist. She is your run-of-the-mill American plutocratic psycho politician, only with even less brains than Obama, Bush the Lesser or Bill Clinton.

Latest

BREXIT chaos, as May’s cabinet crumbles (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 18.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at the various scenarios now facing a crumbling May government, as the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement is forcing cabinet members to resign in rapid succession. The weekend ahead is fraught with uncertainty for the UK and its position within, or outside, the European Union.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

If Theresa May’s ill-fated Brexit Withdrawal Agreement is eventually rejected this could trigger a vote of no confidence, snap elections or even a new referendum…

Here are six possible scenarios facing Theresa May and the UK (via The Guardian)

1 Parliament blocks Theresa May’s draft withdrawal agreement and political declarations

May faces an enormous task to win parliamentary approval, given that Labour, the SNP, the DUP and 51 Tories have said they will not vote for it.

If the remaining 27 EU member states sign off the draft agreement on 25 November, the government will have to win over MPs at a crucial vote in early December.

If May loses the vote, she has 21 days to put forward a new plan. If she wins, she is safe for now.

2 May withdraws the current draft agreement

The prime minister could decide that she will not get the draft agreement through parliament and could seek to renegotiate with the EU.

This would anger Tory backbenchers and Brussels and would be seen as a humiliation for her government. It might spark a leadership contest too.

3 Extend article 50

May could ask the European council to extend article 50, giving her more time to come up with a deal that could be passed by parliament – at present, the UK will leave on 29 March 2019.

Such a request would not necessarily be granted. Some EU governments are under pressure from populist parties to get the UK out of the EU as soon as possible.

4 Conservative MPs trigger a vote of no confidence in the prime minister

If Conservative MPs believe May is no longer fit for office, they could trigger a no-confidence vote.

Members of the European Research Group claim that Graham Brady, the chair of the powerful 1922 Committee, will receive the necessary 48 letters this week.

A vote could be held as soon as early next week. All Tory MPs would be asked to vote for or against their leader. If May wins, she cannot be challenged for at least 12 months. If she loses, there would be a leadership contest to decide who will become prime minister.

5 General election – three possible routes

If May fails to get support for the current deal, she could call a snap general election.

She would table a parliamentary vote for a general election that would have to be passed by two thirds of MPs. She would then set an election date, which could be by the end of January.

This is an unlikely option. May’s political credibility was severely damaged when she called a snap election in 2017, leading to the loss of the Conservative party’s majority.

Alternatively, a general election could be called if a simple majority of MPs vote that they have no confidence in the government. Seven Tory MPs, or all of the DUP MPs, would have to turn against the government for it to lose the vote, triggering a two-week cooling-off period. May would remain in office while MPs negotiate a new government.

Another route to a general election would be for the government to repeal or amend the Fixed-term Parliaments Act which creates a five-year period between general elections. A new act would have to be passed through both the Commons and the Lords – an unlikely scenario.

6 Second referendum

May could decide it is impossible to find a possible draft deal that will be approved by parliament and go for a people’s vote.

The meaningful vote could be amended to allow MPs to vote on whether the country holds a second referendum. It is unclear whether enough MPs would back a second referendum and May has ruled it out.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Brexit Withdrawal Agreement may lead to Theresa May’s downfall (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 151.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement has been published and as many predicted, including Nigel Farage, the document is leading to the collapse of Theresa May’s government.

During an interview with iTV’s Piers Morgan, remain’s Alistair Campell and leave’s Nigel Farage, were calling May’s Brexit deal a complete disaster.

Via iTV

Alastair Campbell: “This doesn’t do remotely what was offered…what is the point”

“Parliament is at an impasse”

“We have to go back to the people” …”remain has to be on the ballot paper”

Nigel Farage:

“This is the worst deal in history. We are giving away in excess of 40B pounds in return for precisely nothing. Trapped still inside the European Union’s rulebook.

“Nothing has been achieved.”

“In any negotiation in life…the other side need to know that you are serious about walking away.”

“What monsieur Barnier knew from day one, is that at no point did Theresa May intend to walk away.”

“Fundamental matter of trust to the electors of our country and those who govern us.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Theresa May’s Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, and why the deal is a full on victory for the European Union and a document of subjugation for the United Kingdom.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Coming in at 585 pages, the draft agreement will be closely scrutinized over the coming days but here are some of the highlights as outlined by Zerohedge

  • UK and EU to use the best endeavours to supersede Ireland protocol by 2020
  • UK can request extension of the transition period any time before July 1st, 2020
  • EU, UK See Level-Playing Field Measures in Future Relationship
  • Transition period may be extended once up to date yet to be specified in the text
  • EU and UK shall establish single customs territory and Northern Ireland is in same customs territory as Great Britain

The future relationship document is less than seven pages long. It says the U.K. and EU are seeking a free-trade area with cooperation on customs and rules: “Comprehensive arrangements creating a free trade area combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.”

The wording might raise concerns among Brexiters who don’t want regulatory cooperation and the measures on fair competition could amount to shackling the U.K. to EU rules.

As Bloomberg’s Emma Ross-Thomas writes, “There’s a clear sense in the documents that we’re heading for a customs union in all but name. Firstly via the Irish backstop, and then via the future relationship.”

Separately, a government summary of the draft agreement suggests role for parliament in deciding whether to extend the transition or to move in to the backstop.

But perhaps most importantly, regarding the controversial issue of the Irish border, the future relationship document says both sides aim to replace the so-called backstop – the thorniest issue in the negotiations – with a “subsequent agreement that establishes alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing.”

On this topic, recall that the U.K.’s fear was of being locked into the backstop arrangement indefinitely in the absence of a broader trade deal. The draft agreement includes a review process to try to give reassurance that the backstop would never be needed. Basically, the U.K. could choose to seek an extension to the transition period – where rules stay the same as they are currently – or opt to trigger the backstop conditions. In fact, as Bloomberg notes, the word “backstop,” which has been a sticking point over the Irish border for weeks, is mentioned only once in the text.

As Bloomberg further adds, the withdrawal agreement makes clear that the U.K. will remain in a single customs area with the EU until there’s a solution reached on the Irish border. It’s what Brexiteers hate, because it makes it more difficult for the U.K. to sign its own free-trade deals, which they regard as a key prize of Brexit.

Predictably, EU Commission President Juncker said decisive progress has been made in negotiations.

Meanwhile, as analysts comb over the documents, Jacob Rees-Mogg, chairman of the European Research Group, has already written to Conservative lawmakers urging them to vote against the deal. He says:

  • May is handing over money for “little or nothing in return”
  • The agreement treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the U.K.
  • It will “lock” the U.K. into a customs union with the EU
  • It breaks the Tory election manifesto of 2017

The full document…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

4 resignations and counting: May’s government ‘falling apart before our eyes’ over Brexit deal

The beginning of the end for Theresa May’s government.

The Duran

Published

on

Via RT


Four high profile resignations have followed on the heels of Theresa May’s announcement that her cabinet has settled on a Brexit deal, with Labour claiming that the Conservative government is at risk of completely dissolving.

Shailesh Vara, the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office was the first top official to resign after the prime minister announced that her cabinet had reached a draft EU withdrawal agreement.

An hour after his announcement, Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab – the man charged with negotiating and finalizing the deal – said he was stepping down, stating that the Brexit deal in its current form suffers from deep flaws. Esther McVey, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, submitted her letter of resignation shortly afterwards. More resignations have followed.

Labour’s shadow Cabinet Office minister, Jon Trickett, predicted that this is the beginning of the end for May’s government.

The government is falling apart before our eyes as for a second time the Brexit secretary has refused to back the prime minister’s Brexit plan. This so-called deal has unraveled before our eyes

Shailesh Vara: UK to be stuck in ‘a half-way house with no time limit’

Kicking off Thursday’s string of resignations, Vara didn’t mince words when describing his reservations about the cabinet-stamped Brexit deal.

Theresa May’s EU withdrawal agreement leaves the UK in a “halfway house with no time limit on when we will finally become a sovereign nation,” his letter of resignation states. Vara went on to warn that the draft agreement leaves a number of critical issues undecided, predicting that it “will take years to conclude” a trade deal with the bloc.

“We will be locked in a customs arrangement indefinitely, bound by rules determined by the EU over which we have no say,” he added.

Dominic Raab: Deal can’t be ‘reconciled’ with promises made to public

Announcing his resignation on Thursday morning, Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab tweeted: “I cannot in good conscience support the terms proposed for our deal with the EU.”

Raab claimed that the deal in its current form gives the EU veto power over the UK’s ability to annul the deal.

No democratic nation has ever signed up to be bound by such an extensive regime.

Former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith said that Raab’s resignation as Brexit secretary is “devastating” for May.

“It sounds like he has been ignored,” he told the BBC.

Raab’s departure will undoubtedly encourage other Brexit supporters to question the deal, political commentators have observed.

Esther McVey: Deal ‘does not honor’ Brexit referendum

Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey didn’t hold back when issuing her own letter of resignation. According to McVey, the deal “does not honour” the result of the Brexit referendum, in which a majority of Brits voted to leave the European Union.

Suella Braverman: ‘Unable to sincerely support’ deal

Suella Braverman, a junior minister in Britain’s Brexit ministry, issued her resignation on Thursday, saying that she couldn’t stomach the deal.

“I now find myself unable to sincerely support the deal agreed yesterday by cabinet,” she said in a letter posted on Twitter.

Suella Braverman, MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Exiting the EU © Global Look Press / Joel Goodman
Braverman said that the deal is not what the British people voted for, and threatened to tear the country apart.

“It prevents an unequivocal exit from a customs union with the EU,” she said.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending