Tuesday, November 29, 2016

U.S Election For President 2016




Mainstream media has to recall magazines 'reporting' that Clinton won printed before the election, claiming that they prepared versions for her main opponent's victory which have yet to appear during the week of the election. All of the mainstream media magazine as Time, Newsweek, the Atlantic and even the Economist display a heavy pro Clinton bias.

Facebook is replete with claims of political violence targeting people for supporting either main candidate. Numerous photos appear of hand written notes with racist and or sexist messages upon people' automobile windshields or spray painted upon buildings, ostensibly targeting Clinton supporters. Numerous videos appear of people physically assaulting persons for voting for her main opponent. In an after the election interview televised Sunday November 13, the President elect tells his supporters to 'stop it' regarding any such actions. As of that date, Clinton, outgoing US President and Vice President Obama and Joseph Biden, and Clinton primary challenger Sanders have yet to issue any such public order.

Within a day or so after the election, substantial protests appear in about 12 cities across the USA protesting Clinton's defeat, with photos of the buses said to be used to transport participants and of craigslist ads purportedly recruiting people to participate in such protests for pay. Such protests are in marked contrast to the relative lack of protests earlier this year over the DNC's conduct favoring Clinton over challenger Bernie Sanders in the primaries, particularly California where a 69% support for Sanders indicate by polls would be whittled down to a loss via confusing and arcane ballot forms and accessibility with rules prohibiting poll workers answering questions from people seeking to vote for Sanders in California's "open" primary.

The President elect meets with Barack Obama in the White House where they discuss the transition.

Clinton supporters, citing reports that she won the nationwide popular vote, call either for abolishing the electoral college or having its electors go back upon their pledges to voters and instead vote for Clinton. Numerous figures including former USAG and current Washington DC powerhouse law firm partner Eric Holder call for the first option, something which they apparently never advocated before the election. The NY Times calls the first option with a piece claiming that Clinton won by some 3 million votes. Google within a week of the election, shows a 380,000 or so Clinton lead. Other sources show the opposite, claiming censorship by Google, and noting that not all of the absentee ballots have been yet counted. Clinton supporters as the pop performer Lady GaGa call for the 2nd option, though if only an upwards of 37 electors chose to violate their pledges to voters than the election gets to be decided by the Republican controlled U.S. Congress. No word yet what happens if it ends up that Clinton actually lost the popular vote.

Though Clinton conceded the election early morning of November the 9th, she has reportedly endorsed an effort taken up by Green Party candidate for President Jill Stein, calling for a recount of the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania where Clinton lost, but not of any states where she reportedly won by similar margins, such as Maine and New Hampshire. The President elect meanwhile has asserted that he actually won the legitimate national popular vote, if votes by illegal aliens were excluded. Mainstream media organs as the New York Times are bashing this claim, ostensibly because of a lack of proof, though are supposed to be believed despite failing to mention the discrepancies with the Democrat Parties handling of the Clinton-Sanders primary, as if only the Republican Party was corrupt.

Indeed, the popular vote count continues some 3 weeks after the election, with Clinton's reported "lead" growing to over 2 million. No word anywhere that I have seen regarding whether this has ever occurred before, nor if any such continuing count would be so heavily shewed to one candidate. Nor is there any word that I have seen on an *actual* official source for these figures (AP and Google are not official sources). None of the media accounts providing an official source, such as a U.S. nor State of California government web site.

California is quite significant in this; without it, Clinton in-arguably lost the national popular vote, with the election results with most states voting for her challenger, and with her voter support outside of California primarily clustered in the major population centers of New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C. and Dade County Florida.

Indeed the vote geographically revels a serious disconnect between both main parties respectively with the urban and rural demographics. Recall that it was Hillary Clinton, who reportedly has not driven an automobile in about 20 years, who suggested that we reinstate a 55 mph or so National Maximum Speed Limit, during her 2008 run for the White House who expressed her support – reportedly unscripted by her handlers, and has even admitted to being “out of touch” with much of the general population.

One would think that in this day and age there would be official vote count sites from the federal government and the 50 various states, each with a real time log of blocks of votes as they come in, available in a spread sheet form downloadable to the general public to guard against later tampering. Alas so far, any such mention of something as that in media and political figure sources remains lacking.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Julian Assange On Hillary Clinton



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

Assange wrote on WikiLeaks in February 2016: "I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. ... she certainly should not become president of the United States."[189]

 http://wwwfreespeechbeneathushs.blogspot.com/2016/10/about-julian-paul-assange-wikileaks_22.html

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

'barred election clerks from helping someone confused by the forms"

On June 7, 2016 the Democrat Party discredited itself with the administration of the California primary voting.

And days later, so would The N.Y. Times, via following its lack of reporting of the above, combined with its editorial of  June 13, 2016 regarding a major political party disenfranchising voters.

The Republican Party, but not the Democrat Party, mere days after the June 7, 2016 California primary where a great many voters were disenfranchised via an array of "provisional" and crossover" ballots.

When shall the New York Times issue an editorial addressing the disenfranchisement of countless voters in the June 7, 2016 California primary?

That they have not speaks volumes for their lack of objectivity and their intellectual enslavement to the so called Democrat Party.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Concerning Legislative Criminals


http://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Friday, May 27, 2016

New York Times Misleading Headlines- A Textbook Example


The New York Times 
May 21, 2016

IMHO The New York Times is notorious for its practice to sometimes place a highly misleading headline to imply something that is belied within the body of the article, as if they want to sway opinion among those that are more prone to skim headlines, rather than more thoroughly digest articles and ask questions.

A recent example of this is with their May 21, 2016 article by Abby Goodnough and Sabrina Travernise about the simultaneous fall in the number of prescriptions in the U.S. being issued for opioids, and the rise in the number of opioid related fatal overdoses.

An honest headline would have been: "U.S. Opioid Prescriptions Down; Deaths Up".

However, the headline appearing on their print edition,
prominently at top right of page one, was: "Prescription Dip Seen as Advance in Opioid Battle"

The headline appearing on the print edition's continuation of this article on page 3 was:
"Opioid Prescriptions Drop For The First Time In 20 Years" 

Notably, it is the 2nd rather than the 1st of these headlines that now appears at the top of this article upon the New York Times web-site:

From within the body of the article:

(excerpts)
"...for each of the past three years — 2013, 2014 and 2015 — prescriptions have declined, a review of several sources of data shows."

" IMS Health, an information firm whose data on prescribing is used throughout the health care industry, found a 12 percent decline in opioid prescriptions nationally since a peak in 2012. Another data company, Symphony Health Solutions, reported a drop of about 18 percent during those years. Opioid prescriptions have fallen in 49 states since 2013, according to IMS, with some of the sharpest decreases coming in West Virginia, the state considered the center of the opioid epidemic, and in Texas and Oklahoma. (Only South Dakota showed an increase.)" ...
... One important development that may have helped propel the decline came in 2014, when the federal government tightened prescribing rules for one of the most common painkillers: hydrocodone combined with a second analgesic, like acetaminophen. In the first year after the measure took effect, dispensed prescriptions declined by 22 percent, and pills by 16 percent, according to an analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine. Refills — which the change made much more difficult — accounted for 73 percent of the decline.
Yet:
" So far, fewer prescriptions have not led to fewer deaths: fatal overdoses from opioids have continued to rise, taking more than 28,000 lives in 2014, according to the most recent federal health data. That number includes deaths from both prescription painkillers, like Percocet, Vicodin and OxyContin, and heroin, an illegal opioid whose use has been rising as access to prescription drugs has tightened."
Fewer prescriptions, yet more deaths is see as an advance?
 
This should be regarded as a textbook example of the New York Times issuing a misleading headline to conform with its slavish devotion to the incorrect position of the political campaign that it has advanced in numerous editorials and quest pieces, in favor of further overriding doctors and patients on decisions regarding opioids. 

For more on this, please see my concurrent piece in my other blog "Freedom of Medicine and Diet"

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2016/05/opioid-prescriptions-down-deaths-up-ny.html