Breaking News, Recent Shows - posted on November 11, 2016 by

11/11: PRECARIATS OF FIRE: THE RULE OF FORCE IN WORLD AFFAIRS

PRECARIATS OF FIRE

THE RULE OF FORCE IN WORLD AFFAIRS

Monologue written by Clyde Lewis

When my show was in its infancy, there were a lot of corporate executives nervous about the news I chose to report. There were many instances where I would report a little-known fact with regard to conspiracy history that lurked in the dark corners of high school civics or introductory college political science courses. The executives would inform me that I had to meet with a consultant so he would give me advice and how to improve my radio show.

Twenty years ago, I was told it is best that you dumb down or water down what you talk about because it will go over the heads of the people — I was also told you are not on the air to teach the people.

I was always in disagreement with them because I felt the subject matter I was reporting needed to be explained and there are a lot of things the people do not know about how their government operates and how the system has loopholes where we are set up to lose.

I am not going to sugar coat it; the globalists are working hard to ignore the will of the people. If you think the people have spoken and the victory of Trump is secure, you may want to think about the weapons and loopholes the globalists can use to thwart those who have decided to vote down their tyrannical coup de tat.

Let this be a warning to all – our election isn’t just an election for the people of the United States, it is also a strike against the globalist world order, a strike that has resulted in the apoplexy of those who are ill informed and are now acting out on their confused inner dialogue.

The globalists will commit themselves to hijacking and thwarting the will of the people. We need to prepare ourselves for the possibility no matter how unlikely it may appear to be.

First of all, I want to share with you why I think we should be on our guard and be aware of a conspiracy to continue the controlled demolition of this country. Regardless of how you feel about a Trump victory and regardless of what Trump has promised about standing up to the globalists, there is a darker sense of foreboding that something is afoot.

I have always been able to take stories and connect them together in order to get a bigger picture of what is happening in the world. Just after we elected Donald Trump as our president elect, there was a story that came out of the United Kingdom that set off an alarm for me.

The story from the BBC warned that there would be riots in England if Parliament vetoed the people’s choice to exit from the European Union. Nigel Farage, the interim leader of the U.K. Independence Party, has warned of civil unrest in Britain if citizens feel they have been “cheated” over the result of the Brexit referendum. His comments come after a court ruled that the entire U.K. parliament must vote on whether the country can start the process of leaving the European Union.

nigelfarage

This has dealt a blow to Prime Minister Theresa May, who had argued the government on its own could trigger “Article 50” and start the divorce with the European Union. May’s stance had led to concerns that lawmakers at the heart of the U.K. government would opt and force through a so-called “hard Brexit” without the consent of Parliament.

A “hard Brexit” scenario would likely mean a loss of access to the EU’s single market but more control over its immigration policy. Farage has argued against staying a member of this single market and is now concerned that the country is heading for a “half Brexit”.

Now why should we be concerned about this?

Because Donald Trump’s victory as President has sent a message to the globalists that we as Americans want a divorce from world controls. Trump has stated that he will make America great again by putting it first and limiting relationships with NATO and the United Nations. This defiance and the majority of votes for Trump are being compared to the U.K. vote against the European Union or the “Brexit.”

Comparatively speaking, this is a great analogy.

Donald Trump’s win on Election Day has been likened to Britain’s stunning vote to leave the European Union — but bigger.

Trump said in the past the Brexit vote as a harbinger to his winning the presidency, drawing a parallel to the raucous British debate over whether the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, despite warnings from elites that such a move would be a mistake.

Trump called his candidacy “Brexit plus,” saying that just as a populist movement in Britain led to the vote to leave the E.U., so too would a similar spirit land him the White House. His argument was dismissed as nonsense by his critics. Now, the parallels need to be reexamined again including the same possibility that Trump’s victory could be vetoed by the Electoral College. Now, I admit this is unlikely, but it is not impossible and historically we have seen attempts to overthrow decisions of the people before.

h3mwvlnze6qjrc4i4sjzo44wfevfnuzu-large

The Electoral College has comes under fire from scholars and popular pundits alike. The fiasco in Florida in the wake of the 2000 election offered a short-term window into the important role which the Electoral College plays in the presidential selection process.

The coverage of the count and recount, the historical Supreme Court decision that “gave” the election to George W. Bush and numerous stories about the constitutional role of the House of Representatives offered a civics lesson that few knew previously.

It is important to remember, or perhaps simply to recognize, the United States is not a democracy, but rather a republic. As it relates to the Electoral College, the distinction means that voters are not voting for the presidential candidates themselves, but rather for a representative to vote on their behalf when the members of the Electoral College meet about a month after the presidential “election” to officially determine the winner.

There is an often overlooked aspect of the Constitution and that is the Framers of the Constitution did not trust the voting masses to make good decisions. This is evident throughout, but very clearly in the electoral design of both the Senate and the president.

The Framers created an Electoral College, or, at least in theory, a group of well-informed statesmen to act as a protective wall between the electorate and the selection of the presidency.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68, that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation” who “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

a-ham1

Sadly, for the first time in American history, the Electoral College is now seeing what is happening with the people and the division the outcome of this election has caused.

They are now being encouraged to validate its original mission: to prevent the election of an individual “who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications” with the “talents for low intrigue.”

“Faithless Electors” are members of the Electoral College who, for whatever reason, do not vote for their party’s designated candidate.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 157 faithless electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast its votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector.

Sometimes electors change their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia electors acted together in 1836. Many times, however, these electors stood alone in their decisions. As of the 2004 election, no elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against his or her party’s designated candidate.

Keep in mind that just because the media has called the election one way does not mean that that’s actually the outcome of the election.

Twenty states do not legally require their electors to vote for the candidate who receives the most votes. However, in a literal sense, those electors would be following the original intent of the framers, and view their role as voting for the good of the country and not vote merely along party lines.

Elements of the Democratic Party have not given up. There is a concerted effort, to convince Republican-pledged Electoral College Electors to switch their votes to Hillary Clinton. With 20 Electoral College votes still up for grabs it is conceivable that Hillary would need to “flip” just 21 of Trump’s 290 pledged votes to take the Presidency. The #NeverTrump movement may come back into play on December 19th, when the Electoral College votes.

Now I keep getting people who say to me,“But Clyde she conceded so it is settled so move on!”

No, it settles nothing.

Though Clinton officially conceded the race to Trump the morning after his reported win, a concession is not legally binding. During the 2000 election Al Gore conceded to George Bush on the night of the election, only to begin court proceedings a few short hours later to contest the results and initiate recounts.

John Podesta took the podium after the Trump win and smugly said that Hillary would not concede. He bemused “We can wait a little longer, can’t we? They’re still counting votes and every vote should count. Several states are too close to call so we’re not going to have anything more to say tonight.”

gty-podesta-01-as-161109_12x5_1600

He was hinting at a Plan B — ironically, the media asked Trump if he would accept the election results, insinuating that he was going to lose. Now that he has won the riots that are happening indicates the other side refuses to accept the results of the election.

Change.org has already filed a petition asking members of Red States’ Electoral College to turn on the will of the people of their state and cast a vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

Now keep in mind this is constitutionally legal. It has happened before however none of those faithless votes ever resulted in a significant shift in the election. Electors are bound by most states to cast the vote for their pledged party and failure to do so comes with fines and, in some cases, jail time.

The election is definitely not over until the electoral votes are cast on December 19. If Hillary can flip 10 votes, we may see the will of the people ignored again.

This I am sure would be seen as subterfuge in a way to forge a coup d’etat before Trump even takes office on January 20th 2017. There have been attempts at overthrowing a presidency before in this country.

In the 1930’s a group of wealthy industrialists had been plotting to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the Marine Corps most highly decorated generals, Smedley Darlington Butler, was asked to head up an Army of 500,000 men to do the job.

9a819c439252c25ece623508d35e831e

He refused. It was a Nazi Plot where Wall Street interest threatened to overthrow the government. They were a front called the American liberty League and those who supported it were several major companies including Heinz, Maxwell house Coffee, Colgate, U.S. Steel, and General Motors. The chief organizer was Prescott Bush.

Now you have been given your dark civics lesson. I want to be realistic, considering how big a lead Trump has, who the electors are, how their votes are counted, and hundreds of years of American democratic norms, statistics point to this being a liberal left fantasy play.

But, it’s never been tested, and the Constitution gives the electors the right to make the final call. The dark question is whether or not the comparison of Brexit and Trump will play out to a vetoing of the will of the people.

If electors should simply choose to make Hillary Clinton president, this would be tremendously dangerous for American democracy if it ever gained popularity.

Furthermore, electors overturning Trump particularly would certainly cause a constitutional crisis, because there is no world in which the Republican Party, who again, controls Congress, would accept Clinton taking the presidency in this way.

So, Change.org is now encouraging what would be considered a call for destroying American democracy, at least so far as it relates to presidential election results.

People are already asking for his impeachment before Trump can even get the chance to do anything, without any clear idea of what his potential for making real change is.

Do we really want civil war in America?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *