When H. Clinton campaigned for the Democratic nomination for President of the USA in 2008, one got the impression that she had more clout and conviction than Obama, which wouldn't be too difficult in any case. When I first heard Trump make a public speech, I must admit I wasn't too impressed.

Most people appreciate that first impressions are often false. It also takes time to get to know a person, according to factual information made available. When the choice is limited to two main presidential candidates, obviously one must refer to whatever reliable information one finds to be able to decide who best to vote for.
It's amusing to note that what Obama had to say to discredit Hillary Clinton in 2008 is the exact opposite to what he now says in her support.

Many people might be swayed by considerations that are essentially beside the point. One would not be choosing a first female President in the history of the USA, as opposed to yet another male President, for example, one would be choosing the best possible President under the actual, momentous, social, economical, national and international circumstances.

More than ever, the American Presidential elections are not just a national affair. They concern the whole world (which is also why Viewfinder is taking this liberty) and at this particular epoch the choice is absolutely crucial.
Maybe for the first time in American history the choice is not simply between Democrats and Republicans. It's not a question of swinging from one traditional political tendency to the other, or of choosing not to do so. This time there are much larger political and ideological issues at stake. There may be certain Republicans, for example, who could be quite sold on the ideology of eventually opting for a neo-Marxist global government system, to the detriment of 'dated democracy'. Even if this meant the gradual cultural destruction of nations as we know them. To the elite ideological theoreticians, such sacrifices would be justified by the 'subsequent results'...

These are the stakes that determine the choice, and the choice is simple. On one side there is a candidate who is financially committed to implement "Sorosian dystopia" (chaos). Therefore in keeping, H. Clinton will continue to allow mass, quasi uncontrolled immigration of mostly Muslim males into the USA.
On the other side there is a Republican candidate who is already aware of what is taking place, but is totally free institutionally, politically and financially to apply a policy of common sense that counters such chaos creating recipes. He has not been bought out by any sectarian multi-billionaire, or by any Arabian States.

More serious is the fact that as the Soros and Rothschild, etc., project seems to be treated as a priority, it could even lead to war with Russia, who understandably rejects the inane NWO idea.
Any sensible person would reason that to solve the problems caused by ISIS, including the persecution of Christians, Copts and Kurds in the Middle East, and the essential problem of Syria, cooperation with Russia is primordial, absolutely essential. Obviously there is no other way.
The fact that Obama has, at least up until now, with only two months left of his mandate, rejected any real cooperation with Russia, underlines the importance he seems to accord to an absurd ideology above the real and immediate interests of the world in terms of humanity, and this without even considering the economic and social interests of the USA.
H. Clinton is on the same political wave length as Obama, but the danger she represents could be even greater, because she is power hungry, vain, temperamental, and sometimes even foolhardy. She may also have a health problem that could complicate things even further.

Additionally there is proof of her being a security risk. By all accounts corroborated by the FBI, yet she seems to benefit already from legal immunity, however much that costs those who have generously invested in her. It may be a very bad investment however, and not only because of her health problem. But for the Sorosian project that must have cost so many millions to initiate, she is irreplaceable. Literally no one else would ever do what she is prepared to do to satisfy her patrons that would neither be in the interests of the USA, nor the world.

The choice is simple. If one chooses H. Clinton, mass, uncontrolled immigration will continue in the USA. This will also encourage the continuation of the same irresponsible open border senselessness in Europe and elsewhere (Canada and Australia) in keeping with the inane, destructive project. Worse, and incredibly, it could even lead to conflict with Russia.

If one chooses D. Trump, uncontrolled immigration will cease. There will be greater border control. For the Middle East problems that are being ignobly exploited by the multi-billionaire megalomaniacs, Trump will very likely cooperate with Putin to get things sorted out at last, not only by getting rid of ISIS, but by finding a common solution to end the noxious civil and ethnic wars in Syria.
Common sense must prevail, internally (reuniting all Americans and starting to get the economy back on track) as well as externally (effective cooperation with world leaders to solve the real international problems). Then who knows? Perhaps even the media will start doing their job with the integrity that was once the hall mark of real journalism.
Text © Mirino. (With many thanks for the use of the 11/9/  memorial anniversary image). September, 2016

No comments: