—J. Steven Reilly

“Trump’s numbers are down!” Proclaimed the mainstream media through the month of August. Graphics-crazy newscasts inundated viewers with charts, graphs, and the like (always featuring bright colors to hold the attention of the “typical American viewer”) to emphasize Hillary Clinton’s support exceeds Trump’s. The pro-Hillary media refuses, however, to present graphics—or any information whatsoever—regarding campaign finance. According to fec.org (the Federal Electoral College website), thru July 2016, Hillary amassed $315.4 million to Trump’s $125.2 million. (Even “The Bern” raised 228+ million!

Moreover, experts predict Hillary will outspend Trump 5 to 1. The big money is in Hillary’s campaign account and the elitists are in her corner. Her campaign ledger leaves no doubt: Hillary is THE choice of the elitist class. Luckily for donors, no one keeps track of contributions—and doles out favors based on them—like the Clintons.

Even before Trump’s nomination, she’d been giving confidential speeches to Goldman Sachs at $250,000 a pop. We will never know what Hillary said to the bankers, but we can assume she had some “unfiltered” statements of her own. Likely, thinly veiled messages meant to reassure her wealthy supporters to not be concerned with any of her “campaign rhetoric.” Regardless of “rhetoric,” Hillary’s past offers all the proof one needs to be certain the elitists will “get what they pay for” should she be elected.

This leads me to another of the graphics, but one that the media is showing—and showing a lot. It reveals that the vast majority of black voters support Hillary. But why do Blacks support this particular Democrat candidate. Hillary is pro-war, pro-immigration, pro-TPP and pro-gay marriage. She is the big money, Wall Street candidate. Meanwhile Trump is antiwar, anti-immigration, and well, inconsistent on gay marriage. As for Wall Street, they claim Trump to be a traitor to his class.

If Blacks were to vote on whether or not to attack Iran, they likely would vote overwhelming no. Hillary would certainly invade Iran and/or Syria and could possibly (whether intentionally or unintentionally) goad Putin into a third world war or at the least a full-fledged cold war. Yet, Trump urges termination of the endless conflicts in which the U.S. has become entangled. Further evidence the mainstream media has all the eggs in the Hillary basket is there is their affixing the word “fascist” to Trump. Excuse me, but isn’t the other candidate the warhawk representing big money corporate positions? She’s certainly taking their money and we know how that works with the Clintons.

Looking at another major issue, immigration, were Blacks to vote on whether or not to build a U.S. border wall, they likely would vote to build a big one. Historically, immigration takes jobs from black citizens. It’s a simple matter of preservation. If stopping someone from entering the US will keep one’s job, that person can be expected to support keeping that person from entering the country. Yet, Hillary can be expected to continue Obama’s policy of borders open to all comers (so long as the comers are from third world countries). Open borders is the ultimate win-win for Hillary. It is seen as a liberal policy AND it serves the corporate interests very well as it lowers wages. In other words, as the mainstream media would have us believe, only racist whites want closed borders. But, as detailed above, that is a lie.

Historically, and with good reason, Blacks have not supported policy intended to make supernational corporations more money (aka “globalization” and “Free Trade”). Yet, this election features trade, an issue that, much to the chagrin of the moneyed elite, has become a major hot button topic. Of course, this was never supposed to happen. The plan was brilliant and worked repeatedly on the American public in the past. The trade deal would be hammered out in secret and then, when made public, with as little fanfare as possible so as not to raise suspicion. The Trans Pacific Partnership was eight years in the making and all of it in secret. Then, something went wrong. The plan of keeping the American public as uninformed as possible was derailed by Trump who blew this whistle on this “NAFTA on steroids.” Since then, Obama has bent over backwards to win the day for his benefactors by getting the TPP passed. As he was unable to do so, the hot potatoe has landed squarely in Hillary’s lap.

Before American voters learned the truth about the TPP, Hillary not only backed it, but was quite complimentary of the entire process when speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Though Hillary claims the TPP is bad for America, it’s an open secret that, should she be elected, she’ll demand a “reworking” resulting in no substantive changes and passage of the TPP. Recall Obama’s “campaign rhetoric”—he’d pull the U.S. out of NAFTA? Obama’s campaign manager reassured a stunned Canadian ambassador, in private of course, that it was “just campaign rhetoric” and Canadian politicians needn’t worry. Corporate interests need not have placed a stunned call to Hillary. They know it’s just “campaign rhetoric” as does everyone else—including her staunchest supporters.

But, these are the issues where the Clintons really excel. Should she win she will “get tough” on those “greedy supernational corporations” and “force them back to the table.” There she will “rework” a deal that favors the American citizen. The big corporations will cry foul, mainstream media will trumpet this her first big victory. Yet, those who read history (the real history) know that is exactly how the Rothschilds and their agents were able to get the legislation for a third central bank through the US legislature.

While Hillary’s rhetoric is certainly intended to sooth concerns of “typical democrat” voters who see her bulging campaign accounts, her actions betray the real direction intended for her administration. She chose Virginia Senator, Tim Kaine, who’d recently supported Obama’s “fast-track” (think, ripping off a band-aid quickly) of the TPP. (Footnote: Apparently pressed by Hillary, Kaine is now claiming he always had reservations about the TPP. Meanwhile, Virginia Governor and longtime Clinton insider, Terry McAuliffe claimed Hillary still favors the TPP. McAuliffe elaborated, “Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.” The following day, McAuliffe’s spokesman stated the governor meant he hopes Clinton will support TPP because, personally, he likes the deal. Anyone else having 1990s flashbacks?)

She recently appointed the pro-TPP (and pro-Keystone Pipeline and pro-fracking) Ken Salazar as her administration transition team leader. Salazar is an ominous choice to the aforementioned “typical Democrats” as he proudly represents all that Americans find sleazy about politicians—especially big money politicians. (Footnote: To get an idea of Ken Salazar, imagine Bill Clinton minus Hillary’s driving force. A former US Senator, Salazar now lines his pockets urging politicians adopt policy favorable to clients of his employer, WilmerHale (a huge lobby firm in Washington D.C.). Worse, he is an unregistered lobbyist. Amazingly, Hillary wrote an op-ed last year in which she voiced her “concern” about the “revolving door” between congress and lobbyists. She specifically stated unregistered lobbyists present a real danger. Yet, she’s just placed an old school, what will you do for me?, “Washington insider” at the head of her transition team!) Are these picks not speaking volumes to prospective voters? “Personnel is Policy” as the old adage goes and Hillary’s personnel choices betray her rhetoric.

And, on the issue of gay marriage, we needn’t predict where Blacks come down on it—they’ve already made their position known! Earlier, I referenced the 95% of Black votes Obama got on November 4, 2008. In California, however, something amazing happened that same day in those same voting booths: 56% of Black voters cast their vote to ban gay marriage. Let that sink in … this shows that on the individual issues, Blacks vote their conscience—even if it goes against their staunch Democrat-only upbringing. As we all of whatever race, gender or ethnicity step into the voting booth this November, we should take a close look at Hillary and her track record and let our conscience do the rest. Your future and America’s may well hang in the balance.

Does Hillary really sound like a candidate who deserves virtually all the Black votes? In a way only Trump can pull off, he said to a largely Black audience in Chicago in August 2016: “You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth are unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?” Yet only a few (or less) Blacks in a hundred intend to vote for him. It’s absolutely astounding that a group, whether based on race, gender, ethnicity or whatever, can be so homogeneously in favor of a candidate whose stance on major issues is so clearly at odds with those of the group.

Let’s step back and look at some history. Blacks, by the numbers at least, became staunchly Democrat during the reign of FDR. Truman’s narrow defeat of Dewey was in large part due to 77% of black voters’ support. Ike did manage 39% of the black vote in ’56 and four years later, in his hotly debated loss to JFK, Nixon mustered 32%, but such numbers are unheard of today. In 1964, 94% of black voters supported the Democrat LBJ who made equal rights for minorities the keystone of his Great Society agenda. But from then on—and with race relations not promoted as a critical campaign issue—the question has only been will Black support be relatively low at 88% or so, or high at 95%. In more recent campaigns, Gore, Kerry and Obama had platforms that toed the typical democrat party line (except Bonesman Kerry’s supported continuation of the war).

Since Clinton’s two terms to the present, major policy issues are seamless between the donkey and elephant (RINO?) administrations. Interestingly, just before Obama broke LBJ’s record by pulling 95% of the Black vote, factcheck.org wrote:

That November, black voters broke the record they’d set in 1964 as 19 out of 20 black voters backed Obama. Many of the groups with expectations of positive “change” and “transparency” were sorely disappointed in what the next four years brought—including Blacks; so one would have expected Obama’s numbers to plummet among Blacks in the 2012 election. They plummeted alright, to a mere 93%.

Now to the key question: Does Hillary deserve the Black vote? As pointed out above, she is rabidly pro-war. When she learned that her U.S.-backed jihadists had brutally assassinated Muammar Gaddafi, she infamously quipped, “We came. We saw. He died.” And, her Israel policy is actually even to the right of George W. Bush’s. If/when militant Israel asks Hillary to jump, her immediate and only response will be: “How high?” That must be considered as American soldiers continue to die in the furtherance of Israel’s Middle East hegemony. Blacks, on the other-hand, have always been and continue to be antiwar—including wars fought for Israel.

And, when it comes to Israel and the $4+ billion in cash paid to its government every January 1st (plus the billions in military weapons and R&D one-way sharing agreements), I am guessing Blacks—and most Americans generally—would take a look at their communities and wonder where their $11 million per day is. Lastly, Hillary was caught on video essentially telling “Black Lives Matter” supporters to “get lost” (and not because she thinks “all lives matter”). Still, she is polling over 9 out of 10 black votes?

One would think these facts on issues of such import to Blacks would impact their choice. Her rhetoric—the same Obama used—about “more federal aid to the needy,” etc. is being paraded loudly enough and often enough to drown out myriad other issues. (Good thing no one ever got hold of a transcript of any of Hillary’s speeches to Goldman Sachs). Since Obama’s policies did not meet the expectations Blacks held for his presidency, one could reason that Blacks would not buy into the same tired rhetoric from a white woman—or anyone, regardless of color or gender. Can she really be considered to be so much better/different? Yet, as it stands, the “Black vote” is running right back into the arms of a Democrat candidate who represents “more of the same.”

One final thought in closing: regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc, we should consider Hillary’s basic suitability to lead America. Consider the revelations regarding how the Clinton-controlled DNC repeatedly undermined Bernie Sanders’ campaign, revealing that his nomination was never a possibility and making a mockery of the democratic process by assuring Hillary’s nomination. Would that not serve as notice that Ms. Clinton is not fit for the office to which she aspires and for which she will do anything...and probably has done. Consider her repeated “poor judgment” as a failed Secretary of State—Benghazi (and her famous quote that it just didn’t matter) and her illegal, off-the-grid emails being just the most well-known of many “bad calls” on her part. To discover and publicize all her acts of poor judgment and even criminality would be quite an undertaking. Infowars.com recently reported that such an undertaking is now all the more difficult as google, in conspiracy with the Clinton campaign, changed the algorithms for searches regarding “Clinton body count.” And, in a sign that the apocalypse is upon us, Fox actually reported the story, crediting Alex Jones’ site.

But, even with Google making uncovering certain aspects of Clinton criminality more difficult, merely a partial list would have made Meyer Lanksy proud. What we’ve learned—and this we can say with certainty—it will NOT end. If anything, Hillary gets emboldened and her actions become more violent, more risky, more outrageous. More than ever, the United States Constitution will be disregarded, pushed aside, ignored. It has been posited more than once that the reason scandals don’t sink the Clinton ship is simply because there are so many of them that the public has become totally desensitized to them. What a pathetic view of the thinking (or lack thereof) of those who intend to vote for her.

  Go to Order Form
  Return to Table of Contents
  Return to Home Page