The Obama Eligibility Question – Part I

THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED

by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2016

(Oct. 11, 2016) — As the nation enters the final days of the 2016 presidential election, Democrats have once again resurrected the “birther” issue, charging that Republican candidate Donald Trump is somehow unfit to serve because he once raised questions about Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility.  That being the case, it behooves us to unveil the truth in terms that all can understand.

What few Americans seem to realize is that the entire issue revolving around the question of Obama’s place of birth… the United States or Kenya… is a “false flag” issue.  If we accept that Stanley Ann Dunham, of Honolulu, Hawaii, an American citizen, was indeed Obama’s mother, then his place of birth is immaterial; he is a US citizen.  However, what is an absolutely essential factor in Obama’s eligibility is the question of his status or non-status as a “natural born” citizen.  Were both of his parents US citizens, or were they of mixed or foreign nationality?  Avoiding speculation, we will analyze the issue using only what Obama has told us about his origins.

First, we have the absolute and unequivocal requirements of Article II. Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which state that, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

We know that Obama was not alive at the time the Constitution was adopted on June 21, 1788; we know that he was at least thirty-five years of age when he took office in January 2009; and we have sufficient supporting evidence that he has been a US resident for at least fourteen years.  But is he a “natural born” US citizen?  What is a “natural born” citizen, and why did the Framers limit access to the presidency only to “natural born” citizens?

In drafting the U.S. Constitution, the Founders relied heavily on the work of Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel.  In his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations, Book One, Chapter 19, in a section titled “Of the citizens and natives,” Vattel defined the term “natural born Citizen” as follows: “… The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who arecitizens…  The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.  I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only theplace of his birth, and not his country (emphasis added).”

When the Founders met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the US Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them, and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.  So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g., an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?  It is a thoroughly preposterous notion on its face.  To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.

In a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, addressed to George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, Jay expressed his concern over the prospect of allowing an individual with any form of potential foreign allegiance to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy.  He wrote:“Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”

Further expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that motivated and inspired the Founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”                                                                 

The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development.  Accordingly, what the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born,” was the concern that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment in which he would come to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  In other words, what Hamilton and Jay were saying is that no person who had been exposed to an environment in which they could have been unduly influenced by foreign parentage, owing allegiance to a foreign government or ideology, should ever serve as president or vice president of the United States.

Taking into account those concerns, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a draft Constitution under which only two (2) jobs in the entire United States of America… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.

What is likely, even probable, is that the Founders drafted Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution to reflect Vattel’s definition of a “natural born” citizen.  That is precisely why they include in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the often overlooked and little understood words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” 

At the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, there were three types of citizens:

1. The former British subjects who, having renounced all foreign allegiances, and having pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, became citizens of a sovereign American nation on July 4, 1776,
2. The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, the first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and all less than twelve years old at the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, and
3. A class of citizens comprising those who were naturalized after July 4, 1776, having taken a loyalty oath and having renounced all foreign allegiances.

To fully understand the significance of the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…,” it is necessary to recognize three significant dates:

1. July 4, 1776, the date on which the Declaration of Independence was signed, making all citizens of the thirteen colonies citizens of the United States,
2. June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New Hampshire made the Constitution the official law of the land, and,
3. July 4, 1811, the date after which the first “natural born” citizens… those born to U.S. citizensafter July 4, 1776… became 35 years of age.

The Constitution requires that, in addition to being a “natural born” citizen and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age.  However, the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.  To solve that problem, the Framers added a “grandfather clause,” making it possible for newly-minted US citizens… all US residents for at least fourteen years and all at least thirty-five years of age, but none of them “natural born” because they were born to parents who were British subjects prior to July 4, 1776… to lead the nation.  This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age thirty-five.

For example, our first seven presidents… George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson… were all “citizens” because they were born in what later became the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were all British subjects at the time they were born.  Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence.  Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen;” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parentsafter July 4, 1776.

Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

A great many well-meaning, but ill-informed, Americans refuse to accept the fact that, while the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Were that not the case, and had the Framers intended that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” be considered synonymous, they would simply have written, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

In Part II of this series we will discuss the term “natural born Citizen” as understood by US political leaders during the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

—————————-

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

MUST READ...

Government Of The People, By The People, And For The People: Will It Endure?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/government-of-the-people-by-the-people-and-for-the-people-will-it-endure/

LAWRENCE SELLIN

Retired Colonel, U.S. Army Reserve

2:59 PM 10/11/2016

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, captured the essence of the 2016 election when he commented about a number of Republicans disavowing endorsements of or support for Donald Trump following the release of the vulgar 2005 video:

“A lot of these bed-wetting, hand-wringing Republicans: They’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose — they’re scared to death that Donald Trump is going to win,” and “mess up the neat little package of fun they have and they all play to the donor class.”

Even avowed Hillary supporter MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski tore into Republicans who withdrew their support for Donald Trump over his hot mic comments, calling them “pathetic, weak and spineless.”

The arrogance of political establishment has only gotten more brazen since 1993, when Lewis H. Lapham (“A Wish for Kings”) wrote:

“The politicians dress up the deals in the language of law or policy, but they’re in the business of brokering the tax revenue, and what keeps them in office is not their talent for oratory but their skill at redistributing the national income in a way that rewards their clients, patrons, friends and campaign contributors.”

Corruption is now endemic in Washington DC, where politicians like the Clintons convert public service into personal profit by granting financial favors to foreign governments and international business interests.

I have long said that there is a Cold Civil War underway in the United States to determine who should control the federal government. It is not a contest between the Democrat and Republican ideologies, but a battle between the entrenched power of the bipartisan political establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people. It is a conflict between those who want to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law and the party leaders, who wish to continue the practices of political expediency and crony capitalism.

In this election cycle, Donald Trump has forced the permanent political establishment out of the closet, exposing it to the voters for what it really is, an oligarchy; a small, mutually supportive group of politicians, media outlets and financiers that exercises control of the government for corrupt and selfish purposes.

It should surprise no one that Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan doesn’t support Donald Trump and wishes to continue business as usual in Washington DC.

It is because Ryan’s policies more closely match those of Hillary Clinton.

Both promote open borders and international trade agreements that treat American workers simply as chips in a high-stakes globalist poker game.

The rise of Donald Trump can be directly attributed to a Republican Party that never practiced the principles that it preached nor pursued the policies it proposed. They are people who are only interested in maintaining their position as the junior partners in the ruling elite and courting the affection of the mainstream media.

As Charles Krauthammer noted, Republican voters have felt not just let down or disappointed, but betrayed, sold out to donors and lobbyists:

“Did they repeal Obamacare? No. Did they defund Planned Parenthood? No. Did they stop President Obama’s tax-and-spend hyperliberalism? No. Whether from incompetence or venality, they let Obama walk all over them.”

When the disingenuous Republican establishment talks about “limited government,” what they really mean is limiting voter choice, limiting the need to fulfill their campaign promises and limiting their responsibility to represent the views of those who placed them in office.

Likewise, Hillary Clinton champions policy positions in public that are meant to deceive voters about the true intentions of her private policy positions.

Hillary’s America will be defined by globalist exploitation of our economy and the further subservience of our workforce to those global interests.

In Hillary’s America there will be unlimited mass migration through open borders, which will forever change the demographics of the country in ways that will render American culture unrecognizable and ensure a permanent far-left Democrat Party majority.

The First Amendment will be replaced by political correctness and speech codes.

Black Lives Matters and other domestic extremist groups will be encouraged to create crises that can be exploited to limit individual liberties.

For example, the Second Amendment will be decimated by additional federal regulations and executive orders, further restricting private gun ownership and ultimately leading to universal confiscation.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who, through top aide Huma Abedin, will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America, such as Sharia in our schools, courts and communities?

If, according to the political-media establishment, the 2016 election is “over” because of crude, but private eleven-year-old comments in order to elect a thoroughly corrupt, tyrannical and ruthless woman, then America is surely “over” too.

Nothing is more important than defeating Hillary Clinton. Nothing.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired US Army Reserve colonel, a command and control subject matter expert, trained in Arabic and Kurdish, and a veteran of Afghanistan, northern Iraq and a humanitarian mission to West Africa. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

Hillary Clinton has never been hammered as she was Sunday night, and it showed. Knocked off her game, she was no longer the prim and poised debater of Hofstra University.

THE DONALD LIVES!

Patrick J. Buchanan 

Donald Trump turned in perhaps the most effective performance in the history of presidential debates on Sunday night.

As the day began, he had been denounced by his wife, Mike Pence, and his own staff for a tape of crude and lewd remarks in a decade-old “locker room” conversation on a bus with Billy Bush of “Access Hollywood.”

Tasting blood, the media were in a feeding frenzy. Trump is dropping out! Pence is bolting the ticket! Republican elites are about to disown and abandon the Republican nominee!

Sometime this weekend, Trump made a decision: If he is going down to defeat, he will go out as Trump, not some sniveling penitent begging forgiveness from hypocrites who fear and loathe him.

His first move was to host a press availability, before the debate, where a small sampling of Bill Clinton’s alleged victims–Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, JuanitaBroaddrick–made brief statements endorsing Trump and denouncing the misogynyof the Clintons.

“Mr. Trump may have said some bad words, but Bill Clinton raped me,” said Broaddrick, “and Hillary Clinton threatened me.”

The press had to cover it. Then the women marched into the auditorium at Washington University to watch Hillary Clinton defend her behavior toward them after their encounters with Bill.

As the moderators and Hillary Clinton scrambled to refocus on Trump’s comments of a decade ago, Trump brought it back to Bill’s criminal misconduct against women, his lying about it, and Hillary’s aiding and abetting of the First Predator.

It was like a tawdry courtroom drama in an X-rated movie, a new low in presidential debates. But what it revealed is that if Trump is going down, his enemies will carry away their own permanent scars.

As Caesar said of Cassius, “Such men are dangerous.”

Hillary Clinton has never been hammered as she was Sunday night, and it showed. Knocked off her game, she was no longer the prim and poised debater of Hofstra University.

There were other signs that, win or lose, Trump intends to finish the campaign as he began, as a populist-nationalist and unapologetic adversary of open borders,globalization and neo-imperialism.

When moderators Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper revealed their bias by asking Trump tougher questions and more follow-ups, and interrupting him more rudely and often, he called them out.

“It’s one on three!” said Trump. And it sure looked like it.

How could the moderators have ignored that other leak of last week, of Clintons’s speech to Brazilian bankers where she confessed she “dreams” of a “hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”

If the quote is accurate, and Clinton has not denied it, she was saying she dreams of a future when the United States ceases to exist as a separate, sovereign and independent nation.

She envisions not just a North American Union evolving out of NAFTA but a merger of all the nations of North, South and Central America, with all borders erased and people moving freely from one place to another within a hemispheric super-state.

If this quote is accurate, Clinton is working toward an end to the independence for which our Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution.

After all, Thomas Jefferson did not write some declaration of diversity in 1776, but a Declaration of Independence for a new, unique and separate people.

Clinton dreams of doing away with what American patriots cherish most.

When the issue of Syria arose, Clinton said she favors a “no-fly zone.” Unanswered, indeed unasked by the moderators, was whether she would order the shooting down of Syrian or Russian planes that violate the zone.

Yet, what she is suggesting are acts of war against Syria, and Russia if necessary,though Congress has never authorized a war on Syria, and Syria has not attacked us.

Trump did not hesitate to overrule the suggestion of Mike Pence that we follow Clinton’s formula. He believes ISIS is our enemy, and if Syria, Russia and Iran are attacking ISIS, we ought not to be fighting them.

As of sunrise Sunday, the media were writing Trump off as dead.

By Sunday night, they were as shocked and stunned as Hillary and Bill.

What did Trump accomplish in 18 hours?

He rattled Hillary Clinton, firmed up and rallied his base, halted the stampede of the cut-and-run Republicans, and exposed the hypocrisy of liberal and secular celebrants of the ’60s “sexual revolution,” who have suddenly gotten religion where Trump is involved.

Trump exposed the fraudulence of the Clintons’ clucking concern for sexually abused women, brought Pence back into camp, turned the tables and changed the subject from the Trump tapes to the Trump triumph at Washington University.

Upshot: The Donald is alive.

While his path to 270 electoral votes still looks more than problematic, there is a month to go before the election, and anything can happen.

Indeed, it already has–many times.

MUST READ...

Trumped­Up Outrage 
Heather MacDonald

The Left condemns the GOP candidate even as it celebrates crudity and sexual exhibitionism throughout the culture. 
READ MORE...

'Chelsea...this isn't going well."

Hillary should be declared unfit because she lies continuously, committed perjury, has taken kickbacks throughout her public life, tried to destroy women and any other people who got in her way, violated multiple security laws and other laws, and left Americans to die.  Other people have been dispensable throughout Hillary’s and Bill’s lives.  Basically, everything the Clintons have done is to increase the power and wealth for themselves.  They certainly have little thought for the rest of us.

Where’s Hillary?October 8, 2016According to her official campaign schedule, apart from the two events this Monday and the 90-minute debates on the 9th and 19th, Hillary will not show her face for twenty days -- without precedent in any American presidential election. More

Trump’s dirty talk versus Hillary’s corruptionOctober 8, 2016If Hillary is so disturbed by dirty talk, why does she campaign with Lena Dunham of HBO's sex-obsessed series Girls? More

Is Trump a goner?October 8, 2016Two possible countermeasures suggest themselves as the recourse for The Donald.  Make himself likable, and/or make the case that times require an honest SOB. More

I’m shocked, shocked at Trump’s naughty wordsOctober 8, 2016I submit the whoop-dee-do is yet another way of squelching normal male behavior and speech, another peg in the mortise board of decommissioning men from being men. More

Wikileaks reveals Clinton's support for open borders and free tradeOctober 8, 2016She said there is a necessity of having ''both a public and a private position'' on politically contentious issues. More

The Fundamental Difference Between Leftists and RepublicansOctober 9, 2016Trump may not make it, but he coalesced a cause that will grow to immense proportions if a Hillary is elected. More

OBAMA: "Gotta have them ribs and P***Y too"...

Duh...

More Than Half of Americans Think Race Relations Have Worsened Under Obama

The exoneration of Hillary Clinton was an act of government malfeasance, a conscious choice favoring political expediency over the principle of “equal justice under law” in order to preserve a corrupt status quo....MUST READ...

2016 election is a referendum on government corruption

By Lawrence Sellin, contributor

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/299568-2016-election-is-a-referendum-on-government

There is a litmus test.

If you would like to know how a Hillary Clinton administration would operate, remind yourself of how her email scandal was handled, not just by Hillary and her aides, but by the Obama Department of Justice, the FBI and the Republicans in Congress — one might say they are all unindicted co-conspirators in a cover-up.

It is a scandal punctuated by government lying and stonewalling and a conspicuous absence of moral courage by those in a position to do the right thing.

Author of “Clinton Cash,” Pete Schweizer, said that this secrecy and financial scandal is unprecedented in terms of scale.

The efforts taken by the Clintons to avoid transparency by setting up a private server and the quantity of money flowing to them dwarfs any previous government scandal. During Hillary’s public service, about $250 million went to the Clintons directly and about $2 billion to the Clinton foundation, an entity seemingly designed to intentionally evade the laws preventing foreign interests from influencing American politics and policy decisions.

If allowed to stand without accountability, the scandal will itself become a precedent for other greedy politicians to follow, essentially putting America up for sale to the highest international bidder.

According to reports, Hillary Clinton established her private email server on January 13, 2009, eight days prior to her confirmation by the Senate as Secretary of State. She later identified March 18, 2009 as the date she began using the private server.

Her use of a private non-secure server for government business, including the exchange of classified material, remained known only to high officials in the Obama Administration until after the Islamic terrorist attack on the US facility in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

As a consequence of that attack, the nonpartisan, government accountability organization Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of State for Benghazi-related emails and other information on November 7, 2012.

Sometime during the week ending on March 15, 2013, Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar, aka “Guccifer,” accessed the email account of Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton confidant, indicating that Hillary had received sensitive, confidential information on what was later revealed to be the private server she improperly used for government business.

It was not the vigilance of government that uncovered Hillary’s private email server, but the intrusions of a computer hacker and the pressure brought to bear on the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice and the FBI through ligation by Judicial Watch.

By March 2015, even the Hillary-friendly New York Times finally admitted that she did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure as Secretary of State Department and she exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business, a potential violation of the Federal Records Act.

And what about Congress?

As Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch has noted, Hillary testified in a Congressional hearing that she turned over all her emails, a statement which we now know is false. In addition, emails were destroyed after Congress had subpoenaed them. Hillary could have been found in contempt of Congress or impeached, even now, because a federal official need not be in office to be impeached. Yet, rather than act, Congress chose to refer the matter of perjury to the Obama Department of Justice for criminal investigation knowing full well that nothing would be done.

The saddest casualty of the Hillary Clinton email scandal is the, perhaps, irreparable institutional damage done to the FBI by its Director, James Comey. It is now clear that he never intended to conduct a proper investigation and, for purely political reasons, he was never going to recommend prosecution. In essence, Comey gave FBI blessing to a double standard of justice, one for powerful people like the Clintons and one for the rest of us.

Also, we have recently learned that the FBI is now in the business of destroying evidence.

Think about that.

The FBI destroyed evidence in a criminal investigation forever preventing the use of that evidence in any pending or future case.

As part of a “side agreement,” brokered by the Department of Justice, Comey agreed to destroythe laptops of Clinton aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, after the two women were granted immunity.

Earlier, referring to Mills, who was Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, Comey stated in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that “we have no evidence to establish that she committed a crime,” in relation to Hillary’s use of a personal email server.

If Comey did not believe Mills committed a crime, then why would she need immunity and why would the evidence need to be destroyed?

The exoneration of Hillary Clinton was an act of government malfeasance, a conscious choice favoring political expediency over the principle of “equal justice under law” in order to preserve a corrupt status quo.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired US Army Reserve colonel, a command and control subject matter expert, trained in Arabic and Kurdish, and a veteran of Afghanistan, northern Iraq and a humanitarian mission to West Africa. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

PollMole, will it prevent a stolen election in 2016?  http://tdarkcabal.blogspot.com/2016/10/october-3-2016-white-hats-report-53.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheWhiteHatsReport+%28The+White+Hats+Report%29 

Posted: 03 Oct 2016 06:16 PM PDT

As November 8 quickly approaches, we’re reminded of a quote attributed to Josef Stalin, “It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.” Or a similar one attributed to Boss Tweed, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything.”

Every four years and to a lesser extent, every two years, we are bombarded with “polls”, polls to tell us who the voters approve of, polls to tell us what the important issues are, polls to give us the latest trends and polls to tell us who will win a particular election, whether it be national or local.  There are two categories of polls, the ones in which the results are released to the public and the ones that are private.  This distinction is important to delineate as the public polls have primarily one purpose when it comes to candidates and that is to give the voters a heads up on how the election will turn out. Or in the  famous words of Turd Blossom himself, Karl Rove, to “create our reality.”

Yes, readers, it’s a mind trick. The cabal spends millions upon billions of dollars annually on their think tank groups to formulate methods by which they convince the public that their plans for world domination are actually not only accepted by the public but demanded by the public. It’s the old formula of problem-reaction-solution, giving the public the perception that they had a voice in the ultimate decision when in fact, the public is being led to their own demise willingly. The giveaway to these psychological ploys is the word, war. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror among the historical ruses the cabal has foisted on the public to gain their support for what turns out to be anything but a war on any of their “targets” but instead, a ploy to garner more and more tax dollars. This, in the end, convinces the public to fund their own downfall, putting us more in debt and transferring more of our wealth to the cabal.

The pushback this election cycle by the American voting public has been primarily on the Republican side of the aisle, akin to the UK’s rejection of the EU in the form of the Brexit vote.  Will this carry over to the November presidential election? Most likely it will as the mainstream media’s desperation grows by the day in their attacks on the Trump campaign. This indicates what most of us already know, if there is a fair election in November, Trump will win in a landslide.

Who will vote for Trump? First of all, let’s start on the Democratic side of the aisle. The Bernie Sanders supporters were given a glimpse of reality when the hacked emails of the DNC showed the whole process was rigged from the beginning. But what does Bernie do? He throws his support to HRC and proves he was just the designated “Huckleberry” in an attempt to legitimize the fix. The majority of his supporters will vote for Trump. The Republican vote will go to Trump as evidenced by his landslide victory in the primaries and all that’s left is the “independent” or “undecideds”, the majority of which will also vote for Trump. And if anything, Johnson and Stein will take votes away from HRC, not Trump.

How do we know this? One of our inner circle is acquainted with the owner of a polling company who’s been in business for over 40 years and conducts private polls in 35 states. So far, Trump has received at least a 70% approval rating in all polling and has been as high as 90% in some areas. Interestingly enough, some of the registered Democrats have stated they’re going to vote for Trump.  This is not surprising given their candidate is one of the most corrupt, if not most corrupt political candidate in our 200+ year history.

Be apprised that the polls released by the mainstream media are for shaping the public’s collective thinking by creating our reality, as Karl Rove so aptly put it.  What we are witnessing is the mainstream media predicting a close win for HRC in November. Expect HRC’s poll numbers to go up after the last debate, regardless of the performance of either candidate so that when they manipulate the results of the election in her favor, no one will complain. They’re counting on the herd mentality as they know voters like to be able to brag after the election that they, “voted for the winner”, regardless of whom it is or what they do in the following years during their term after they are elected.  These same voters will defend their choices to the death for they are not about to admit they’ve been duped or they were wrong. This is the objective of the think tanks mentioned above, to create the cognitive dissonance that permeates our society.

The White Hats were contacted a few months ago regarding a new exit polling application that was in the development stages designed to provide accurate exit voter polling. In the coming weeks, every Monday, we will release new and updated information regarding the PollMoll app and the election news as it develops.

http://www.pollmole.vote/

The Android app has already been released and the Apple app will be released later this week in addition to a windows app that will follow.

To listen to a detailed discussion of the need for the PollMole app and the ideas and reasoning behind it plus some insights into the long history of election fraud in this country, click the link below for an interview with the inventor of PollMole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWdvU5zOw7Y

The White Hats group is working closely with Dr. Davis in the development, introduction and implementation of the PollMole app in an attempt to prevent HRC from stealing the election. We urge our readers in the US to download this app as soon as possible and get familiar with its features ahead of the election on November 8.

Wiki Leak Press Conference this morning from Berlin...YOU HAVE BEEN PUNKED!

I watched this LIVE because someone emailed me the link. I watched the ever hyper Alex Jones from his studio in Austin early this morning. They had two live feeds. Before the Live Stream started Alex Jones was so excited with anticipation and assured his listeners/viewers that this was going to be devastating information to be revealed. Jones predicted that Assange was going to reveal the misdeeds of Hillary in the Middle East, i.e., funding Isis, gun running, Libya, Syria, Benghazi etc.

I can’t emphasize enough how giddy Jones was with excitement. He and his crew had been up all day and were convinced that this event was a monumental game changer. What actually occurred was amateurish self-serving presentation from Berlin promoting Wiki Leaks. The moderator presented a video talking about Wiki Leaks “successes” over the past 10 years and there was a discussion about the Wiki Leaks “philosophy/mission” re: the truth. When Assange came on to talk via a video feed from the embassy where he is holed up in London he rambled on and on about I know not what.

Jones and his gang soon realized that they didn’t have a clue about what Assange was saying. One of Jones’ partners on the set said I am waiting to hear key words like Clinton, Benghazi, election, money, ISIS, scandal etc. NOTHING! About half way through this extremely boring and incomprehensible presentation Assange suddenly made mention that there were those in America who were expecting some dump of documents re: Hillary Clinton. Assange then stated that Wiki Leaks doesn’t dump important documents at 3:00 in the morning! Jones went ballistic and went nuclear on his set. He said this press conference was a train wreck. “We have been trolled.” There was disgust on the set. Jones and his crew were ranting and raving about how they had been punked by Assange. They were even more upset when Assange said that the next document dump by Wiki Leaks will “before the end of the year”!!!!!!! Jones was screaming now. Obviously he wants any incriminating documents re: Hillary released BEFORE the election.

The presentation last night was a 100% waste of time and a complete misrepresentation of what we were led to believe was going to happen. Alex Jones said that Assange had made some sort of deal. This is my best guess as to what may have happened: Hillary has assured Assange that if she is POTUS she will arrange for his freedom and security in exchange for him NEVER revealing any more damning documents about her crimes and corruption. I do not expect to hear anything else about Hillary coming from Wiki Leaks. Unfortunately. Hope I am wrong.