The result of the primary in New Hampshire has been trumpeted in the MSM as a wonderful comeback for the women’s champion, Hillary Clinton. It has also been speedily and uncritically described by the scribes as a setback for all of the polling experts. Well, I smell a rat! I have always treated political opinion polls with caution for they are mostly manipulated to promote policies favored by the Media Class. We all know that loaded questions, and surveys that ignore popular feelings, are frequently highlighted in newspapers and magazines in order to influence public opinion.
Those who commission the polls frequently have an agenda and the Media also has its agenda when deciding if an opinion poll should get media coverage. Thus we are unlikely to ever see a headline that a poll has shown that 75% of the American people favor capital punishment. Polls that show dishonest and manipulated results are not harmful to the polling companies because the results are never going to be tested. If a poll was headlined tomorrow claiming that 55% of the American public has turned against capital punishment, the claim cannot be proven untrue and if later polls show something different, so what? There is no harm done to the polling company’s reputation, indeed it is enhanced with rich organizations like the Soros Front groups. Consequently, we should ignore most of the findings of political polling and treat them as the propaganda that they are. The exception to this is the poll prediction produced the night before an election, for the result is immediately put to a verifiable test that all can see. When the opinion polling companies all forecast the Obama victory in New Hampshire and all with margins well beyond the so-called ‘margin of error’ (as high as 12% in one case), we can safely assume that they were willing to put their reputations on the line and giving us, not propaganda, but truth. In such circumstances, I do not believe they make mistakes. These companies are good at what they do, when it pays them to be so. On pre-election nights they try their best and that best is professional. I am sure they were more or less confidently right about the size of the Obama lead over Mrs. Clinton. Their polling was after the ‘tears’ interview and everything else that the Clintons and their Media Class sponsors could manufacture. When the result of the voting was announced I could smell a very large rat. Rush Limbaugh the next morning voiced my own thoughts when he questioned the voting, for it seems that in New Hampshire it is possible for people from neighboring States to turn up at polling stations and exercise a vote with the flimsiest stories. Many New Hampshire polling stations are close to the boundaries of States that harbor thousands of organized Democrat loyalists. A phone caller to Rush Limbaugh from New Hampshire confirmed that his area was packed with visitors on the day of polling. Subsequently, I have heard that Far Left Representative Dennis Kusinich is questioning the legitimacy of the Democrat vote. He is a Party maverick (and that rare breed, an honest Leftist politician of integrity). As Rush pointed out, the MSM will not touch any story that questions the New Hampshire outcome, no matter how well supported by evidence – and we all know why, at least on this website.
I would not normally question primary election results in the USA, for most are reasonably honest and pit only Party member against Party member. As John Fund of the WSJ editorial board has repeatedly argued however, there is some voter fraud, especially in heavily Democrat neighborhoods where votes might influence the result between Dems and Republicans in a contested area. There are a number of reasons why this fraud happens and why it is a Democrat crime and not a Republican crime. First it almost always takes place in inner city areas where crime and corruption are commonplace and those who organize it have little to fear. Secondly, the fraudulent votes are easy to engineer in administrations that are slack, inefficient and staffed by people who get jobs based on race, union membership and corruption. Finally, we have the Leftist philosophy, which is that ends justify means. Since Leftists believe that they and only they have the ideas that will shape a better world and that there is no other-worldly judgment day waiting after death, fiddling election results to get the right (Left) outcome is a noble enterprise.
I would also question this particular result because the Clintons are involved. Enough said! I think Obama was cheated out of his victory. Let me be honest and admit that I would sooner live in a USA presided over by him than the Clintons, for I do not believe that he would be a dishonest President, nor that he would view the Presidency only as a means to further his own interests. I do not think he would attempt to curtail free speech, over ride the Constitution, grab the FBI files or use government to persecute opponents. I will let the reader complete that sentence
Last week I watched for the first time the Republican debate on Fox News. I was impressed with the level of debate which I thought contained plenty of substance. I will have no problem voting for any one of these men in order to keep out the Dems and one Dem (and partner) in particular. There were five contestants – Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Thompson. It was my first view of Fred Thompson, for he rarely gets the Media spotlight. He was mightily impressive as a man of sound judgment, integrity, wisdom and sensible conservative ideas. I will enthusiastically vote for him if I get the chance for I think he would be the best President of this great nation. I was least impressed with Huckabee who dodged a few questions and despite his religious credentials, seemed a little false. Romney was impressive, but I think he is consumed with ambition for Romney. Giuliani was also impressive and has a sharp brain, confidence and sounds like a man who would lead. It’s a pity about his personal life which surely has shaped his social views and weakness on issues of morality. McCain is tough and would be a good wartime leader, though not much of a conservative. Incidentally, way back on 9th September on this website, when McCain had been written off by the pundits, I wrote “cometh the hour, cometh the man” and again on 18th December I wrote not to overlook his chances. Now he is a front runner! The problem with Thompson is that he is thoughtful, elderly looking, not pushy, ponders before he gives a view, deals logically and intellectually with the issues and never grandstands. Great attributes for a President, but not for a competitor engaged in a Media-dominated campaign that is heavily loaded in favor of the opponent.
There has been little to cheer about in the news but last night in a little corner of the UK there was a bright spot. In the Council by-election in Ibstock, Leicestershire, the BNP candidate came second, ahead of the Tory and Lib-Dem candidates and only 62 votes behind the winning Labour candidate. As this result (which will terrify the three establishment parties and the UK and European Media Class) will get no publicity I will set it out here for those who cannot be bothered to visit the BNP’s own informative website.
Labour 699: BNP 637: Tory 515: LibDem 441. The BNP has never fought in this ward before and gets totally ignored by the MSM – except when the MSM runs dishonest scare stories. This alone makes it a startling result. On top of this, Leicestershire is one of the areas where the BNP’s recently expelled rebels were strong within the organization. Also, the Marxist, union-sponsored Searchlight organization again targeted the voters with anti-BNP leaflets, a tactic that is surely in breach of UK election rules where party expenditure is strictly limited. A BNP win would have made Radical and Right delirious, but a near thing is the next best thing. One very significant aspect of the result is that the Labour Party defeated the incumbent Tories, suggesting that the BNP took many Tory votes. Bad news for the despicable Cameron! You can bet that all the Leftists will be chattering frantically about this result, though not in public.
There is another interesting aspect to this little election. The Labour Party won despite its commitment to the supposedly hugely unpopular war in Iraq. John McCain is said to be the front-runner in the US contest despite his commitment to the supposedly unpopular war. Howard in Australia won re-election despite the war and only later lost through voter fatigue that always hits governments in Anglo-style democracies after two terms in office. My theory is that the Media with its constant campaign against the war (and the Soros-financed attacks that are carried out through multiple Front organizations) make many people feel that they cannot publicly admit to wanting war and victory, perhaps not even to themselves. But deep down they know the war is necessary and they do not share the Media/Leftist defeatism that goes unchallenged in every newspaper, magazine and TV program. The anti-war Hollywood propaganda films bomb when released and no pun intended. Support for the war is not an albatross around the necks of politicians. It is a pity that the BNP, a Party that is generally nationalist and patriotic, has succumbed to anti-Americanism and opposed the war against Islamic Imperialism and thereby encouraged the enemy that fights UK troops around the world.
I write this from a chilly and damp California. Al, you are all promises and no delivery!