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.

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

'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.

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.

Vin Mariani Bottle 2016 Reincarnation

For more information, please see:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://angelomariani.wordpress.com/&prev=search

https://angelomariani.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/la-renaissance-du-vin-tonique-mariani-avril-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

Imagine This- 1st U.S. 100+ mph "Autobahn" High Speed Tollway Announced For Western Utah I-80 Median Space

Salt Lake City Utah to West Wendover, Nevada Facility Proposed For Construction In The I-80 Median- Expected to Spur Tourism and Automotive Technology Development In The Bonneville Salt Lakes Flats Area

Existing Western Utah I-80

Project to construct a pair of barrier separated highway speed carriageways in the median of I-80 from Wendover, ultimately to western Salt Lake City, would bring a whole new opportunity for ultra high speed driving in the Bonneville Salt Flats area.

- 1st stage is the 50 mile western portion.

- 2^nd stage is a re-aligned I-80 segment between Aragonite and Sinclair, to provide a greater radii curve.

- 3^rd stage is the eastern portion to western Lake Point, and continue to western Salt Lake City with a speed limit reduced to 120 mph. 

Would be separate from the regular I-80 2x2 roadways.  It would ultimately have full left and right hand shoulders flanking 3 lanes in each direction, with individual minimum speed postings: a posted right-hand lane minimum speed of 90 mph, a middle lane minimum of 110 mph, and a left lane minimum of 140 mph.  Travel at 155 mph or high would require the operation of 4 way blinkers to increase visual impacts of such higher speed traffic to others, with passing speed variables limited to a differential of 35 mph to vehicles in the immediate adjacent lane.  Would feature camera enforcement for lane discipline posted regulations, with passing on the left strictly enforced, and be open via a special toll.

Would be part of an automotive development program encouraging automotive technological and vehicular construction projects, with new facilities for accommodating increased tourism based upon a love of automobiles, including a boost to automotive activities upon the Salt Lake Flats.

Is also being supported by the Nevada Casino business interests to encourage traffic from Salt Lake City and its International Airport to West Wendover, Nevada, which are discussing establishing a high speed automobile service and rentals between those points.   The casinos are expected to use various models of high performance automobiles for such a service, with various auto manufactures rumored to be considering offering the use of certain models for free in exchange for the publicity to drive sales.

Is expected to spur tourism in the Wendover- Salt Flats area.

Would be equipped with special tollway entryways to discourage inebriated drivers.

Would be equipped with roadside facilities with refueling stations, including Tesla ‘supercharger’ recharging equipment at 50 mile intervals to facilitate high performance electric automobile clientele, who would need these to accommodate the reduced millage range of such high speed driving; while Teslas for instance, which lack combustion engines for running generators and thus relay strictly upon batteries, are known to have a range of over 200 miles, the higher speed driving to be expected upon this facility would reduce that notably, with speeds of about 125 mph reportedly reducing the range to around 90 to 115 miles.  Such refueling stations likewise would also include combustion fuel stations offering more than the standard fare of gasolines, including E-85 for flex fuel vehicles, and special higher octane blends for operating ultra high performance automobiles at higher speeds, particularly in higher temperature weather.  Such stations would likewise be used to showcase various alternative fuel alternatives as part of the general use of this high speed corridor to showcase advancements in automotive technologies to promote greater efficiencies and cleaner automobiles.

The corridor likewise would add improvements to the existing I-80, including better markings, and would line it with various shrubs to provide safer means of controlling possible errant vehicles, as well as to ‘eat’ CO2 emissions from combustion engine propelled vehicles.

An evaluation of safety records would be used to refine the speed regulations for this and ultimately other such facilities.

,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKoNNY3BL4o

About Donald Trump

Previously he invoked against monetary and trade policy that resulted in shipping much of the US economy overseas, particularly to China.  But now he focus upon the low people on the totem pole- Mexican immigrants, while saying about nothing on how the bank system screws the general public, while succeeding at getting others who are relatively low on the totem pole to cheer.

Makes statements about China and infrastructure putting us to shame, as if he would provide a way out of our malaise at getting big projects done.  But when push came to shove, where has he ever spoken in favor of new bridge-tunnel crossings, anywhere, such as in the NY metropolitan region?   Has he ever spoken on any such matters, asides from stating that we somehow can't afford a replacement Tappan Zee Bridge project (and with no mention of where the years of toll monies went)?!

Likewise, he favors eminent domain for private use.  But has be ever spoke in favor of its application for public use?  Such as a new crossing of Long Island Sound that would be opposed by the super wealthy along Long Island's northern coast?   Has he ever opposed such elite types who continually get away with politically bullying, as apparently this?

He once spoke in favor of ending the war of drugs- protecting alcohol and particularly Tobacco from their competition, but now favors its continuation- bucking the overall trend of more and more people favoring its end.

Indeed, his famous statement against Mexican immigrants, speaking of rapists and drug dealers in the same breath hearkens back to the hysteria of the 1980s.

What sort of political dynamics do things as that indicate?

Catholic-Fascist Jeb Bush Drops Out of 2016 Race

upon his defeat in the South Carolina primary, about 3 weeks after being defeated by Rand Paul who nonetheless dropped out while Bush remained in the race.

https://youtu.be/XliGOGdLnnQ

Here's my write-up of Jeb Bush from last year:

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2015/03/jeb-bush-openly-catholic-fascist-2016.html

As an open tool of Roman, Jeb Bush fervently supported the idea of the continuing inquisition against people for failing to conform to the pharma-alcohol-cigarette protection racket of the war of drugs.

Good riddance!

"Time To Legalize Some Drugs" - D Willinger Letter Published October 2, 1987

appearing in the Westchester Gannett Newspapers
in response to a reactionary pro drug war column by nationally syndicated columnist William Raspberry

text-

William Raspberry is mistaken if he thinks the government has not been going after consumers of illegal drugs (column of Sept. 8).  Records show that most drug law arrests and prosecutions have been directed against consumers.  Indeed, in all of the "victim-less" or "vice" type of crimes, drug type laws have been the ones where the customer is most vigorously prosecuted.

Raspberry seems unaware of the large numbers of drug users serving jail sentences for mere possession, with thousands having served average sentences of ten years for having as little as one marijuana cigarette.  Although marijuana penalties were reduced during the 1970s in a few states, the definition of "dug dealer is broad enough to allow or mandate a disproportionate jail time term for friends who pass a joint around in social sessions on private property.

Likewise with the rise in popularity of cocaine and the rise of political opportunists as Rudolf Giuliani, who find it advantageous to their political careers to set up elaborate sting operations and waste tax dollars prosecuting and jailing productive white collar coke users, our jails are overflowing.  Although a minority of cocaine users destroy themselves with the overuse and/or misuse, millions of responsible productive citizens with healthy relationships with such drugs suffer daily insult and threat from the government.

I am dismayed that Raspberry fails to see the threat to civil rights posed by a government stirring up animosity and hatred towards peaceful minority groups of individuals.  If Raspberry wants to rid peaceful neighborhoods of (presumably non peaceful) drug dealers, he would support legalization.  There is no justification for the laws against marijuana and cocaine in its natural form, coca, which contains many nutrients and other alkaloids recognized as modifying cocaine's effects in ways that can only be described as good.

Legalization would not only solve or mitigate drug problems, it would solve or mitigate the disturbing increase in government powers over individual freedom.

Although history has shown conclusively that drug prohibition is doomed to failure, politicians seek more police state power to fight this war.  For so many to be so blind or deceitful about this assault on civil rights and liberties is frightening.

DOUGLAS. A. WILLINGER
New Rochelle

Also see:

Blame for drug abuse misplaced to benefit politicians, big business 
published January 4, 1988

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/04/blame-for-drug-abuse-misplaced-to.html

Rand Paul 2016 Wimp Out

Rand Paul defeats Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich in February 2016 Iowa Primary.

Yet it is Paul - the sole libertarian candidate in a field of authoritarian candidates - and not those that he defeated that announces a suspension of his campaign!

http://bcove.me/809p1o5e

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-presidential-race/

[excerpt] (CNN)Rand Paul, the libertarian-minded freshman senator who was once viewed as a formidable presidential contender, is suspending his White House bid.

Paul discussed the matter with staff Wednesday morning and sent out a statement confirming the decision to drop out of the Republican presidential primary.

"It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House," Paul said in the statement. 

"Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty."

Paul, a Kentucky Republican, is expected to instead place his focus squarely on his Senate reelection bid, where he faces a wealthy Democrat, Lexington Mayor Jim Gray, who has the money to partially finance his campaign.

Paul finished a disappointing fifth place in Monday's Iowa caucuses, registering just 4.5% of the vote despite placing a heavy emphasis on the state's college towns to bring out younger voters inspired by his libertarian-minded message. He promised that night to continue his campaign.

Note the general lack of media reporting of his decision to be a drop out, that Paul defeated Bush, Christie, Fiorina and Kasich.

Why should it be Paul that drops out and not Bush, Christie, Fiorina or Kasich?

This is even more perplexing when we consider that it occurred just before the primary in New Hampshire, a state known for being more Libertarian.

I cannot believe that Rand Paul would drop out before the crucial primary state of New Hampshire as thousands of libertarians have moved there. Maybe Rand does not have the fire in the belly as his dad had or there are forces at work. I am very disappointed with his decision and this will reflect badly on his senatorial campaign this year- Don Meinshausen

Once again we have a demonstration of the utter absurdity of the staged state primary system with the early states getting to effectively decide the range of candidates, thus violating the Constitutional doctrine of equal protection, by denying voters in the later states the same range of choices?

https://www.google.com/search?q=rand+paul+owa+results&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#eob=R/2/short/m.03s0w/

100% reporting	Delegates	Vote %
Cruz (won)	8	27.6%
Trump	7	24.3%
Rubio	7	23.1%
Carson	3	9.3%
Paul	1	4.5%
Bush	1	2.8%
Fiorina	1	1.9%
Kasich	1	1.9%
Huckabee	0	1.8%
Christie	0	1.8%
Santorum	0	1%
Gilmore	0	0%

Site for 2016 Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson
http://govgaryjohnson.tumblr.com/

DNC Must Fire DWS

Deborah Wasserman Schultz fallacy on supporting human rights violations to protect big alcohol!

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/wasserman-schultz-fueled-by-booze-pacs-blasts-legal-pot/?comments=1#comments

excerpt - Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told the New York Times  she continues to oppose legalizing marijuana – even as she has courted alcohol PACs as one of the largest sources of her campaign funding.

Wasserman Schultz, a House Democrat from Florida, said she doesn’t “think we should legalize more mind-altering substances if we want to make it less likely that people travel down the path toward using drugs. We have had a resurgence of drug use instead of a decline. There is a huge heroin epidemic.”

The fifth-largest pool of money the congresswoman has collected for her re-election campaign has been from the beer, wine, and liquor industry. The $18,500 came  from PACs including Bacardi USA, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Southern Wine & Spirits, and the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/06/the-real-gateway-drug-thats-everywhere-and-legal/

excerpt - You may have heard that marijuana is a gateway drug. Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie makes this argument seemingly every chance he gets. Anti-drug groups often make similar claims.

The evidence seems convincing enough at first blush: studies show that 99 percent of illicit drug users tried marijuana before they did any other drugs. But on its own, this line of thinking actually is pretty tenuous: we could also safely assume that 99 percent of illicit drug users also tried coffee, or soda, or chocolate milk before moving on to stronger substances.

New research out this month in the Journal of School Health could shed some light on this question. A team of researchers from Texas A&M and the University of Florida examined data from from 2,800 U.S. 12th graders interviewed for the Monitoring the Future study, an annual federal survey of teen drug use. They wanted to establish which substances teens typically used first.

They give away their findings in the title of their paper: "Prioritizing Alcohol Prevention: Establishing Alcohol as the Gateway Drug and Linking Age of First Drink With Illicit Drug Use." They found that "the vast majority of respondents reported using alcohol prior to either tobacco or marijuana initiation."

Not only that, but of those three main substances -- alcohol, tobacco and marijuana -- kids were the least likely to start using pot before the others.