First Day Of Early Voting In Texas And Voting Machines Changing Trump Votes Into Hillary Votes

We told you folks, right here many times. Voting machines are being hacked and reprogrammed to turn Trump votes into Hillary votes.

This problem exists because of the religious fervency of Leftist ideology. Because, Trump, in their eyes, is the personification of Satan, then anything they do to stop him is moral if not legal. So election officials running polling places who are Democrat have no compunction about manipulating their voting machines and changing the vote. It is for the greater good which they are positively sure of.

Trump keeps talking about a rigged election and the media is constantly correcting him. It’s impossible they say. Oh yeah?

Zero Hedge reports:

Texas Rigged? Reports Of Voting Machines Switching Votes To Hillary In Texas

Tyler Durden's picture


Over the weekend we wrote about a Podesta email that clearly spelled out, in detail, exactly how to “manufacture” polling data by “oversampling” certain demographic groups that are overwhelmingly democrat leaning.  Here are a couple of recommendations from the email:

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

–  General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
–  Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
–  Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed

Obviously, the desired effect of such actions isn’t to create a warm and fuzzy feeling for the Hillary campaign over polling data that they know is false.  Rather, the intent is to use artificial polls, like the ABC / WaPo poll released over the weekend showing a ridiculous 12-point national lead for Hillary, to suppress the republican vote by convincing opposition voters that the race is already over.

Of course, another way that democrats have attempted to “maximize what they get out of their media” this election cycle is by combining rigged polling data with reports from liberal newspapers, like this one from the Washington Post, suggesting that the election is such a blowout that typical republican strongholds, like Texas, are actually in play.



But, if recent reports of electronic voting machine issues are true, then perhaps the democrats have another trick up their sleeves to win Texas in 2016.  As noted by Paul Joseph Watson, residents in multiple Texas cities have already complained that voting machines are switching their votes from Trump to Hillary.



The following report also surfaced in Arlington, Texas from a person who voted a straight republican tickets only to find just before submitting her ballot that her presidential choice had been switched to Clinton/Kaine.  After reporting the error to polling officials, the voter was told that these errors “had been happening.”



This Reddit user also noted multiple reports of voting errors across the state of Texas.



Meanwhile, per the following Facebook thread, these voting “irregularities” are hardly isolated.



But we’re sure it’s nothing…all of these people are probably just trying disenfranchise low-income and minority voters…we bet they even object to dead people voting.


Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing

Never in the history of this nation has the media been so biased and in the camp of one Presidential nominee. This once again illustrates the smugness and religious fervor that Leftists attach to their ideology which is always right in their eyes. Any other opinions are heretical and must be purged, squashed and refuted. This from supposedly objective journalists and media reporters. They cannot help themselves. Their ideology is all pervasive in their lives and dominates every move they make.


News Busters’ Media Research Center reports:

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

For this study, the MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). The networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage.

Our measure of campaign spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of the campaign trail. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump and bashing Clinton, and vice versa), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story. Such statements may have been presented as quotes from non-partisan talking heads such as experts or voters, quotes from partisans who broke ranks (Republicans attacking Trump or Democrats criticizing Clinton), or opinionated statements from the reporter themselves.

Additionally, we separated personal evaluations of each candidate from statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). While such comments can have an effect on voters (creating a bandwagon effect for those seen as winning, or demoralizing the supports of those portrayed as losing), they are not “good press” or “bad press” as understood by media scholars as far back as Michael Robinson’s groundbreaking research on the 1980 presidential campaign.

The results show neither candidate was celebrated by the media (as Obama was in 2008), but network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.

Our analysts found 184 opinionated statements about Hillary Clinton, split between 39 positive statements (21%) vs. 145 negative (79%). Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump, 91 percent of which (623) were negative vs. just nine percent positive (63).

Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.

This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate. Reporters also bluntly called out Trump for lying in his public remarks in a way they never did with Clinton, despite her own robust record of false statements.

As for those “horse race” assessments that we excluded from our “good press/bad press” measure, those were decidedly anti-Trump as well. Out of 569 such statements about the health or prospects of Trump’s campaign, 85% (486) were negative, vs. 15% (83) that were positive. For Clinton, the spin was reversed: out of 432 assessments of her status in the race, 62% (268) were positive, vs. just 38% (164) that were negative.

Thus, judging by their own coverage, network reporters have consistently painted Clinton as the most likely to win, but they have inexplicably spent most of their time trying to dismantle the underdog in the race while giving the frontrunner much lighter scrutiny.

Overall, the networks spent about 40 percent more airtime covering Trump (785 minutes) than they did on Clinton (478 minutes). Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received just over nine minutes of coverage, while Green candidate Jill Stein and independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin each received less than one minute of airtime.
As noted above, more than half of Trump’s coverage (440 minutes, or 56%) focused on the various controversies surrounding his candidacy, while only about 38 percent of Clinton’s airtime was spent on her controversies (185 minutes).

By far, the top topic since the party conventions has been the issue of Donald Trump’s treatment of women, especially the 2005 Access Hollywood tape (which received nearly 50 minutes of evening news coverage) and the unproven allegations from several women that he engaged in inappropriate conduct in the past (26 minutes).

Add it all up, and Trump’s alleged sexist behavior or rhetoric has totaled 102 minutes of news coverage since the conventions. In contrast, references to Bill Clinton’s past treatment of women, and Hillary Clinton’s role in covering up her husband’s wrongdoing, amounted to less than seven minutes of coverage during this same period, a roughly 15-to-1 disparity.

Other Trump controversies were given robust coverage: the issue of his tax returns (33 minutes), his concern that the November election could be “rigged” (27 minutes), and suggestions that Trump and his aides are too close to Putin’s Russia (22 minutes).

In contrast, controversies involving Hillary Clinton received far less attention. Her “basket of deplorables” comment received just seven minutes of total coverage, while barely two minutes (134 seconds) was spent talking about her handling of the 2012 attack in Benghazi when she was Secretary of State.

Bill Clinton’s crack that ObamaCare was a “crazy system” was limited to just 140 seconds of evening news coverage, even though it signaled the kind of intra-party split that would surely have received far more coverage if it had been a Republican vs. a Republican.

Just last week, a Quinnipiac poll found that more than half of all voters (55%) thought the media’s coverage had been biased against Trump. With coverage like this, the question is, what are the other 45 percent thinking?

Rigging The Election Part 2

American Thinker reports:

Rigging the Election: James O’Keefe’s Third Video

This is a transcript of the third video of James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action (PVA) investigating the covert operations against Donald Trump by the Hillary campaign in particular, and Democratic vote-stealing activities in general.


Given the nature of investigative journalism where the scene cannot be set, the video can be a bit abrupt and a bit difficult to understand the audio although there are captions on a lot of the frames. This piece puts together the complete drama that James O’Keefe is telling in this third video.


This video focuses mostly on Scott Foval, although we identify other players when they are speaking. In this video, Scott Foval’s lead affiliation is identified as People for the American Way, which was prior to his affiliation with Americans United For Change which was used in the first video.


Note I: These used to be called “dirty tricks.” Woodward and Bernstein would have made this look like Seven Days in May (you youngsters look it up).


Note II: There is no perfect organizational method for a production that is broken up – inevitably, no criticism – like this one. I have broken it up into sections divided by commentary by James O’Keefe or Project Veritas Action. Where each piece appears on the video – the time – is in the Video column.


Note III: The border lines of the table are left in to help the eye.


Rigging the election

Third Video

James O’Keefe

Project Veritas Action

Project Veritas Action (PVA) Commentary

After last week’s stories, released by Project Veritas Action, Americans United For Change fired Scott Foval. And Robert Creamer “stepped down” from the Hillary Clinton Campaign.


Third Video


(the sections are our designation, not PVA’s)

The Players Their Organizations



Jenna Price Democratic National Committee

Assistant Press Secretary

“We just have to be careful about these things, and the way we talk about them, and who knows about certain things.”



Scott Foval Americans United For Change (AUFC)

National Field Director

“We have to clear this with the DNC, with the Democratic National Committee. We have to clear which message we’re going to be targeting at each event.”


Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground so, by God, we will get ducks on the ground.”

[PVA journalist: “Oh she….so it’s…wow.”]

“Don’t repeat that to anybody.”


Brad Woodhouse Americans United For Change (AUFC)


“I think this duck is going to get roughed up somewhere.



Scott Foval Americans United For Change (AUFC)

National Field Director

“I almost got punched on Monday morning. I mean, I was in a duck costume.”


Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“If the future president of the United States wants ducks on the ground, we will put ducks on the ground.”


James O’Keefe:

“This is Part III of our undercover investigation into the dark, backroom dealings of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In this story, we’ll show an illegal dark money conspiracy between the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC and the non-for-profit corporation Americans United For Change. And it’s all disguised as a duck.


Project Veritas Action


Part 3


[some material from the previous two videos is shown as introduction]


James O’Keefe:

“It was earlier this year when people in Donald Duck costumes started showing up at Trump events across the country. It turns out “the duck” was Hillary’s idea.


Third Video


(the sections are our designation, not PVA’s)

The Players Their Organizations



Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“Tomorrow we start this initiative on the tax returns. So, tomorrow morning at Trump Tower, I hope we can arrange it so it goes down the escalator. We will launch…Donald Ducks.”

“A guy in a Donald Duck costume with a sign that says, “Donald Duck’s releasing his tax returns.”


Project Veritas Action (PVA) Commentary

“Robert Creamer runs Democracy Partners. It’s a political consulting company based in Washington, D.C. with deep ties to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and Obama’s White House. In fact, White House logs document that Creamer visited the White House 342 times and then directly with Obama 47 times.


Third Video


(the sections are our designation, not PVA’s)

The Players Their Organizations Quotes


Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“In the end, that is adaptable to Donald ducks debates, Donald ducks…whatever else he ducks. We are going to have ‘Donald ducks.’”


“The real problem turns out that it’s not easy to find Donald Duck costumes for adults, as you might imagine. Five-year-olds: plenty of them. But the other ones are mascot size.


Brad Woodhouse Americans United For Change (AUFC)


“We did Donald Ducks in May.


Project Veritas Action (PVA) Commentary

“Brad Woodhouse is president of Americans United For Change. After our first video, Woodhouse fired Scott Foval, his National Field Director.


Third Video


(the sections are our designation, not PVA’s)

The Players Their Organizations



Brad Woodhouse Americans United For Change (AUFC)


“We put out a whole blast and a release around the idea that he was ducking.  [garble]

There were not taxes at that point, because this thing has come up repeatedly. And we…”

“The key here is to have the visual and to have the costume and have the sign. We got so much shit for that blast…you know, reporters thought it was silly…”



“Oh no, the reporters probably still think it’s silly. But you know what? We ain’t talking to reporters, we’re talking to voters.


Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“The response in the news this morning was…”


“Originally, we were going to do a project, we were going to do Uncle Sam: ‘I want YOU to release your tax returns.’ I agree, it’s not as good.”

[PVA journalist: “Been done.”]


“I agree it’s not as good. It’s much easier to execute. The guy who has done this other Chicken George thing has this other idea.”


“And, in the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground, so, by God, we will get ducks on the ground.

[PVA journalist: “Oh she…so it’s…wow.”]

“Don’t repeat that to anybody.”

{PVA journalist: “Okay.”]

“And it is a clever, and it is a better idea.”


“Originally, you know, this guy Sklar, who was the…did Chicken George in 1992, came to Lux and I with the idea of Donald Ducks.”

“And I ran it up the flagpole in New York and put it down…and…”


“And then they came up, and they said, ‘We’d rather do Uncle Sam: “I want you to release your tax returns.”’”

“Uncle Sam suits are easy to find for adults. But then I get a call – actually on a plane about to go to London last week – Christina “Reynolds (Hillary campaign) calls and says, ‘I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is the candidate would like to have a mascot following around the duck. I mean Trump. But the bad news is she wants it to be Donald Duck.’”

“And that’s because Sklar is an old Clinton man. He had gone to some buddy of his who is one of her body people and she had explained the idea to Hillary, and Hillary just loved it.”


Brad Woodhouse Americans United For Change (AUFC)



“Okay. Let me tell you something. I think she has the right instinct here. This thing is working, is resonating, but that story…is not exactly what you want to hear about how presidential decision-making happens.”


Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“So my answer to Christina was if the future President of the United States wants ducks on the ground, we will put ducks on the ground.


Project Veritas Action (PVA) Commentary

“Hillary Clinton and the DNC wanted the Donald Ducks at Trump and Pence events. The direct involvement of the campaign and the Democratic National Committee with Americans United For Change and the Donald Duck smacks of illegal, coordinated campaign expenditures. Federal campaign law experts have told us…’the ducks on the ground are likely “public communications” for purposes of the law. It’s political activity opposing Trump paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton and her campaign.’”

“Representatives of Hillary’s campaign run daily conference calls we witnessed with Creamer, AUFC managers, and their operatives. They were talking about where to send the ducks and the ducks’ message. And not just the campaign. Donna Brazile’s Democratic National Committee was in on it as well.”


Third Video


(the sections are our designation, not PVA’s)

The Players Their Organizations



Scott Foval


Americans United For Change (AUFC)

National Field Director

“The operation is to insert and get the duck message in there if we can, or the extremist message depending on…we have to clear this with DNC, with Democratic National Committee. We have to clear which message we’re targeting at each event.”


“But they can insert into multiple events, now through the end of the election on a continual basis, on a daily basis. But basically do a chase all the way across the country.”


“Now, the duck stuff…for the aggressive birddogging…we want to do in front of the line before the events where we’re plastering the outside with the Trump duck message. And then we’re going into the event, everybody has their phone, we insert like twenty people.”


“Twenty to thirty people into the events where they all have their phones set to go off at the exact same time, on an alarm, with the duck call, on the inside of the events, all at once from all over the arena.”

[PVA journalist: “So they’ll catch like the incident going down.”]


“So, we want the media to notice the duck calls, right? So we have everybody load a ring tone on their phone that are all timed to go off at the exact same time.”


Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“We just ordered a thousand rubber duckies with ‘Donald Ducks’ written on them to hand out to people in the press.”

[PVA journalist: “That is a cool idea. That is a cool idea”]


“And we have to order a bunch of Donald Duck hats so we can put people behind them at various events, you know, where they speak. You get the drift? I’m trying to set…I’ll probably set up a mini website.”

[PVA journalist: [garble]]

“It’s got to be Donald Ducks. It’s got to look like Donald.

[PVA journalist: “Do they license the suits?”]

“Yeah, that’s why it’s expensive to buy or rent them because they’re licensed.”


[PVA journalist: “You’re not going to run into a Disney problem [Creamer interjects: “maybe”]  or a copyright issue?”]

[Creamer clasps his hands together and leans back and looks up in a pose of supplication] “No. Please God.” [The sense is that Creamer would love to be sued for the publicity.]

[PVA journalist: ”Oh, my God. That is awesome. You’re gonna get…”]

“I doubt they will because…you know…we’re paying to rent or buy the suits. That’s where they get their license fee. We’re not using it for commercial purposes.”


Project Veritas Action (PVA) Commentary

“The DNC didn’t just help place Donald Duck at protests, they were in charge of it.”


Third Video


(the sections are our designation, not PVA’s)

The Players Their Organizations



Scott Foval Americans United For Change (AUFC)

National Field Director

“The whole duck thing? That came about, the reason we moved it from DNC to AUFC, was to just do a hopscotch, but the actual idea was hatched way back in May.”


Project Veritas Action (PVA) Commentary

“So our journalist asked Creamer why there was a problem with the DNC taking credit for the ducks.”


Third Video


(the sections are our designation, not PVA’s)

The Players Their Organizations



Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“The duck has to be an Americans United For Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and ABC, which is owned by Disney, that they were worried about a trademark issue. That’s why.

[PVA journalist: “Okay.”]

“It’s really silly.”

“Oh, yeah, because that’s going to New York, and New York doesn’t care about any of that shit.

[PV journalist: “Okay. So it was a trademark issue with…”]

“As I said. We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck.”


“In any case, so she really wanted this duck figure out there doing this stuff. So that was fine. So we put all these ducks out there and get a lot of coverage. And Trump taxes. And then “ABC/Disney went crazy because they thought our original slogan was ‘Donald ducks his taxes. Release his tax returns.’”

“They said it was a trademark issue. It’s not, but anyway. Donna Brazile had..she and I had a chat..a connection with..she might get sued. You know. So we switched the ownership of the duck to Americans United For Change..which..and now our signs say ‘Trump ducks releasing his tax returns.’ And we haven’t had any more trouble.”


Project Veritas Action (PVA) Commentary

“On August the 18th, the Wall Street Journal wrote that ‘Donald ducks’ was the creation of the Democratic National Committee. Then on September 8th the Journal reported the DNC cut ties with the duck: ‘“The DNC is no longer associated with the duck. Americans United For Change is now managing the duck” a consultant for the liberal activist group told the Wall Street Journal.’”

“But behind the scenes the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign was still running the show, breaking Federal campaign coordination law.”


Third Video


(the sections are our designation, not PVA’s)

The Players Their Organizations



Jenna Price Democratic National Committee

Assistant Press Secretary

“We kind of divvy up responsibilities. So sometimes it will be, like campaign-owned. So sometimes you will see that they advised something, or they are taking credit for things. So, like we aren’t taking credit for the duck anymore. That’s like random ally groups. But it’s still something that we are not involved in.”

[PVA journalist: “Why aren’t you taking credit?”]

“Just ‘cause there were issues. Like it’s a whole long story. Ask Bob about it.”

Ross Therry, DNC Intern: “Intra-party politics.”

“But, no, it wasn’t party politics. But, we just have to be careful about these things, and the way we talk about them, and who knows about certain things. But you guys are. I trust that it will all be fine.”


Project Veritas Action (PVA) Commentary

Creamer and Foval even expected there to be violence following the duck, and it sounded like they wanted it to happen.


Third Video


(the sections are our designation, not PVA’s)

The Players Their Organizations



Brad Woodhouse Americans United For Change (AUFC)


“You’re going to have these ducks at some of these rallies, right?”


Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“Sure. Every rally.”


Brad Woodhouse Americans United For Change (AUFC)


“So are you [garble] going to provide protection? Because I got to tell you, I think this duck is going to get roughed up somewhere.”

“Somewhere someone is going to rip his costume off.”

Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“It may happen at the Iowa State Fair this week.

Brad Woodhouse Americans United For Change (AUFC)




Robert Creamer Democracy Partners

Founder and Partner

“Because Pence is there and the duck is planning to follow him around.

Scott Foval Americans United For Change (AUFC)

National Field Director

“It’s about the intensity of the reaction.” [this is a bit garbled]

[PWA journalist: “Not the duck itself?”]


[PWA journalist: “Okay.”]

“It’s not the reaction to the duck call and the signs. Because once they pull out these signs, Trump supporters literally start throwing punches at you.”

    “I almost got punched on Monday morning. I mean I was in a duck costume.”

Project Veritas Action (PVA) Commentary

“Foval didn’t get punched. But last week, he got fired. Robert Creamer resigned from Clinton campaign activities.”


“It was after Watergate that Congress passed the campaign coordination law.”

54 USC 30116(a)(7)(B)(i)-(ii) is the statute Congress passed to prohibit coordination.

“To prove a violation, three prongs are required:

  1. Payment by someone other than the candidate for election activity;
  2. Conduct: a campaign being materially involved in shaping communications by third-party groups.
  3. Content: running electoral advocacy close to an election.”

2.11 CFR 109.21 is the regulation the FEC promulgated to define the coordination prongs: payment, content, and conduct.

“The payment is complicated. But just the fact that Foval, a paid employee of Americans United For Change, was the duck at some events constitutes payment by AUFC.

Conduct based on their own admission the campaign; Creamer, their agent; and AUFC, coordinated the duck activity.

And finally, content. ‘Donald ducks’ is undeniably political content directed against on candidate for the sole purpose of helping another.”


James O’Keefe:

“The connection between Creamer, President Obama, and Hillary Clinton is undeniable. As are the campaign law violations. If it looks like a duck; if it talks like a duck; and it walks like a duck; it’s probably a duck.”

“They broke the law.”

“Last week, Hillary denied her connection to Creamer and AUFC.”

“America, it’s time you demand she tell the truth.”

“And stay tuned. Because there’s more to come.”

Rigging the Election – Video III: Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Was PERSONALLY Involved

Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck.

In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations.

“In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.”

It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.”

The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.

Rush reports:

It was from the Project Veritas videos of James O’Keefe that we were able to inform you of a man named Robert Creamer.  May I briefly review.  Robert Creamer is a ranking Democrat dirty-tricks operative.  He is married to Jan Schakowsky, who is a Democrat member of Congress from Illinois.  He is a Saul Alinsky disciple.

During the Obama administration he has visited the White House 350 times.  Forty-two times Robert Creamer has met with President Obama in the Oval Office.  Robert Creamer is tied to the Clinton campaign and the dirty tricks of buying and paying for homeless people and other protesters to show up at Trump rallies and provoke violence.  It is Robert Creamer who’s been caught on tape explaining how it was done, how it was paid for, and who ordered it done.

It was the Clinton campaign.  He’s the guy, when they wanted to disrupt a Trump rally, it was this guy Robert Creamer that got the call.  He went into action using Alinskyite tactics, getting hold of homeless people and others, basically rent-a-mob and paying them X-amount of money, printing up T-shirts that were designed to provoke Trump rally supporters and hopefully to cause violence to that they could then, using the media, blame on Trump supporters.

All of that was bought and paid for and sponsored by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and Robert Creamer was the guy behind it, who did it, with a couple of deputies who’ve also been named.  Well, the next James O’Keefe video is out, as of this morning, Project Veritas Action website, and this new video is entitled, “Rigging the Election, Video 3.  Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Involvement.”  This investigates prohibited coordination between Hillary’s campaign, the Democrat National Committee, and the nonprofit Americans United for Change super PAC.

Campaigns are not allowed to coordinate with PACs.  They are not allowed to communicate. They are not allowed to coordinator strategy. They are not allowed to share funds, none of it.  The Democrats do constantly, and that’s what Creamer is.  Creamer is the bridge between the Clinton campaign and the super PAC.  Now, you may have, over the course of the campaign, seen now and then a bunch of protesters at Trump rallies dressed up as Donald Duck.  You’ve seen those, right, Snerdley?

Well, this latest video from James O’Keefe documents that it was Robert Creamer who did it at the specific request of Hillary Clinton.  So all of this stuff is supposed to appear organic.  You as a watcher, you as a viewer of TV, you watch the Trump rally and you see all these agitated people and there are signs and they’re provoking violence and dressed up as Donald Duck and they’re all running around talking about what a rotten guy Trump is.  None of it’s real.  It wouldn’t have happened if the Democrats hadn’t paid for people to do it.

The media knows this.  The media covers it up.  The media’s in on this.  The media knows full well all of this is campaign tactics.  They present it as organic.  They present it as real.  They present it as normal Americans, young Americans outraged at Donald Trump.  And what O’Keefe here has documented is how it really happens.  This is a short nine-second piece of audio from this latest video. You’re gonna hear the voice of Bob Creamer explaining how the Donald Duck aspects of the protests happened.

CREAMER:  In the end it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground.  So by God we will get ducks on the ground.  Don’t repeat that to anybody.

RUSH:  That’s Robert Creamer, 350 visits to the White House, 42 to Obama’s office, the Oval Office, admitting, “In the end it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president United States who wanted ducks on the ground. So by God we’ll get ducks on the ground.  Don’t repeat that to anybody.”  Look, just documenting for you that none of these protests are real.

And I would go out on a limb and say that well over 80% of the so-called protests, Ferguson, Baltimore, some of it’s real but the vast majority of it is fake, the vast majority is contrived.  It’s paid for.  It’s designed.  It’s scripted.  All made to look natural and organic.  We are being manipulated, our minds and our opinions and our attitudes in ways that we don’t even know.  We might suspect.

Answering The NeverTrumpers

Here is the NevverTrump position as put forth by D. M. Andre:

The Power of the Wasted Vote

“I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don’t want and get it.” — Eugene V. Debs

A common theme during election cycles is the idea that people who do not vote for one of the major party candidates are wasting their vote. This idea is passed around so frequently and causally that it is likely that many of the people proposing it ever really stopped to think about it. Unfortunately, those accused of wasting their vote often mount a meek defense, acknowledging that they may indeed be wasting their vote, but it’s okay because they’re voting their conscience. Aside from the condescension inherent in telling another their vote is wasted, this logic lacks a basic understanding of what voting means. Voting is more than a simple act of math; voting is people actively taking responsibility for choosing their leaders and representatives. Therefore, you do not vote for who you think will win, you vote for who you think should win. The reality is the “wasted” vote has value, it wields power; it is intrinsically the same as the vote cast for the winner.

The Myth of the Wasted Vote

Liar HillaryMajor candidates, buoyed by many of their supporters, try to paint third party candidates as sideshow acts that deflect from the real show. This characterization is not only harmful to democracy, but also untrue. Harmful, because it is attempting to silence perfectly valid points of view. Untrue because the Electoral College and 12th Amendment guarantees that all votes hold the same potential, especially in the event those votes return a plurality rather than a majority. The elections of 1824 and 2000 both highlight the importance of every vote. Meanwhile, the candidacies of George Wallace (1968), John B. Anderson (1980) and Ross Perot (1992) provide some examples of how third party candidates pose credible challenges to major party platforms. Though the outcomes varied, each of these examples illustrates the importance of all candidates in a national election.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb waste in the following way: to use or expend carelessly, extravagantly or to no purpose; to expend on an unappreciative recipient; to fail to make full or good use of; or to deliberately dispose of something. There is a suggestion implicit in these definitions that whatever is being wasted has value. After all, can one really waste something that has no value to begin with? As such, the trope “your candidate cannot win; therefore, your vote is wasted” is a non-sequitor. It assumes that there is only value in the votes cast for the winner. While many individuals thoughtlessly pass on this logic, the true purveyors of this logic are shrewd individuals. Telling people that they are wasting their vote is a fear tactic. And since many people are more motivated to avoid failure than they are motivated to achieve success it is a sound tactic. Regardless of the motivation, this logic is dangerous. Feeling powerless and being motivated by fear are traits more commonly associated with totalitarian regimes, not democracies.

Every vote has value. One can vote for the eventual loser, one can vote for a candidate who reneges on their promises, one can even vote for an individual that appears to have little chance of winning, but none of these actions are tantamount to wasting one’s vote. Conversely, if you’re only voting for the candidate that is most likely to win, and in doing so, voting against your own beliefs then you are truly wasting your vote.

More than Statistics

While each vote has statistical importance, there is more to a vote than simple mathematics. The election is not a horse race, it is not about picking the winners and the losers — it is about participating in democracy. That is why you do not simply vote for who you think will win, you vote for who you believe will do the best job based on the issues that are important to you. Your vote is your voice, if you are merely voting for the candidate most likely to win you are self-censoring.

Along with fear tactics, people try to obscure the voting process by linking a vote for a third party candidate to a vote for one of the two major candidates. Reference the often heard quip that a vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is a really a vote for Donald Trump (replace Trump with Clinton if you happen to be speaking with a Trump supporter). The reality is uncannily simple: a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson, likewise the case with Jill Stein. It’s a vote for that party, for what that candidate stands for, and for what you believe in. It really is that simple. Sure, there are statistical effects to these votes. Most notably, the scenario that follows if no one candidate reaches the necessary 270 votes to secure the Presidency. However, that just shows how absurd the concept of a wasted vote really is — either your vote matters or it doesn’t.

Aside from the statistical effects, the myth of the wasted vote negatively impacts the overall outcome of the election and the candidacy of the elected representatives. The people give an elected official a mandate; however, when that mandate is false it hamstrings their ability for success. Elected leaders who win by a thin margin carry out policies differently than those who win with a commanding lead. Furthermore, voting for a candidate who does not lobby for your issues not only silences your voice, it serves to undermine the elected leaders term by issuing them what amounts to a false mandate. In this scenario, the leader appears to have a larger support base than they actually do, which undermines their ability to accomplish tasks. This situation is exacerbated by down-ballot elections that oftentimes present as a backlash against the Presidency. When congressional races subsequently return contrary results and hamstring the president’s agenda, the system of checks and balances becomes a system of checks and checkmates.

From Either/Or to Neither/Nor, the Power of Influence

The presidential election is more than an either/or proposition. Certainly, third party candidates face an uphill battle before they will be seated in the oval office. However, that does not mean that votes for those candidates are wasted votes; every vote has the power to influence. Third-party candidates challenge the dual party system and add alternate viewpoints that can lead to a more robust national discussion. Democratic and Republican candidates routinely co-opt issues that third party candidates lobby. People don’t need to justify their votes, regardless of their choice. Every vote cast has the power to change the direction of the national conversation; some just have a more direct impact than others.

Here is the Realist NeverHillary position from the Lexington Libertarian:

Here is why third party voting is a wasted vote:

We are a divided nation and very close to being divided equally. We are not divided three ways nor divided four ways. We are divided in two. So more than two contenders running for President only muddies the waters.

This division offers two remarkably different approaches to the role of government in society. One side believes the government should manage most everything and provide for much of society’s wants with a heavy emphasis on redistribution of wealth and high taxes to finance it all. The other side believes that the least government the better, that liberty is not just a word and that the free market is what provides both the most freedom and the highest standard of living.

These two philosophies are often labeled Liberal-Left-Democrat and Conservative-Right-Republican.

If you subscribe to one or the other of these governmental philosophies then you probably work hard to see that the other one does not gain power and get to be implemented.

Now I am assuming here that I am writing to a Conservative, Republican or both audience. Hence we will not be advocating the Liberal-Democrat point of view. The NeverTrump point of view above is based on the thought of Eugene Debs, the Father of American Socialism. Debs founded the Socialist Party in the United Sates and ran for President in 1900 and four more times thereafter. So the advocacy for this position is from the Left. It pains me to see Right Wingers justifying their position using Leftist ideology.

Our electoral process is very unique in the world and differs radically from other democratic voting systems globally. We have what we call the Electoral College. Now in order to get any Electoral College votes you must win the whole state in popular vote (some states have tinkered with this formula). This keeps us in most instances into a two party system. A third party has no hope of winning the Presidency unless it has strong support in many states that can lead to a popular vote victory in those states. It can however win House seats in much smaller geographical areas and build from there to a national challenge. However that is not the way most third party challenges have gone for the Presidency. Most third party Presidential challengers come out of the blue with no party or party apparatus behind them. And thus they have no chance of winning anything.

Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump speaks at the Saint Andelm College New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire June 13, 2016. / AFP / TIMOTHY A. CLARY (Photo credit should read TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)

Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump speaks at the Saint Andelm College New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire June 13, 2016. / AFP / TIMOTHY A. CLARY (Photo credit should read TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)

The 2016 Presidential election offers a particularly strong concern for Conservative-Right-Republicans. In no other election in the modern era have the Democrats put forth a candidate who is so corrupt, crooked and such a liar. There is serious worry that Hillary would bankrupt the nation, swamp it with illegals and compromise national security. Many say she would sell the country out for personal gain. Others say she is pure evil. Most would say that she is a felon running for the highest office in the land.

If she is that bad then the focus of Conservative-Right-Republicans should be to stop her from attaining the Oval Office. So this time around it should not be so much about who you are going to elect but who you are going to stop, not elect. If Hillary is really that bad then you as a Conservative-Right-Republican must do everything in your power to defeat her. If you normally vote Republican – and again this is my audience – then not voting Republican is a ½ vote for Hillary. You are taking away from Trump one vote, one vote from the only person who could defeat her.

Now here is where the main point comes in. The next President will be Hillary or Trump. It won’t be anyone else. So if one of these two is worse than the other you need to weed out the worse one. I would maintain that Trump shows a marked conservative alternative from Hillary’s radical Leftist ideology. See the post, “Trump Contract With The American Voter.”

I am also amazed at NeverTrumpers who are “Conservative Purists” and who voted for McCain and Romney two RINO wimps. Yet they can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump who is probably much more Conservative than McCain or Romney will ever be.

So the complaint for many NeverTrumpers is not ideological it is personal. It’s a matter of style over substance. These objectors don’t care how Conservative Trump is they don’t like his attitude and what comes out of his mouth. They consider him to be a vulgar, crude, Narcissistic man with an out of control ego and cruel treatment of others who would put a bimbo in the White House as First Lady.

But what is attributed to Trump, what he is supposed to have said has been distorted and misquoted. What he has supposedly done to other women is a big lie, an October surprise which is a dirty trick. And lastly what Trump has said is nowhere near as bad as what Hillary has DONE.

The Republican grass roots voters nominated a brawler on purpose. They nominated a brawler because the wimps in the Republican Establishment rolled over and played dead and allowed Obama to run wild in the White House. And they knew that a tough fighter likeTrump would be the only one who could withstand the brutal, slanderous attack the Democrats would launch. And they have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Trump, much of it made up stuff.


Third Party candidates are not always the noble saviors on a white horse that they are made out to be. Just take a look at the 1992 Presidential election. Here is the breakdown in popular vote.

Clinton       43%

Bush          37%

Perot          19%




Perot took many votes away from Bush. Yes, he also received support from Democrats and Independents also. But that support was Reagan Democrats and Independents who would have voted Republican anyway.

This is how we got Bill Clinton and Hillary – BONNIE & CLYDE! If Clinton had lost that election there would be no Hillary running for President today.

If Trump does not win Hillary will be President. Hillary cannot be allowed back in the White House. The last time she was there she stole furniture, china and silverware for her own house.

Many of us Realists didn’t start out as Trump supporters. We were Rand, Rubio or Cruz supporters. But now that Trump is the nominee it makes no difference. Hillary cannot be allowed to win the Presidency. Even Ted Cruz has said that we must support Trump. And if you were a Cruz supporter you should listen to your candidate.

EPA Out Of Control


Obama and the Democrats have illegally grabbed EPA control over the environment, businesses, farms and ranches and like everything else that Obama has done to expand Executive power it has been allowed by Establishment Republicans. This is what is infuriating traditional American citizens. Obama violates the Constitution, bypasses Congress and takes it upon himself to legislate from the Oval Office AND NOBODY TRIES TO STOP HIM. This is exactly why Trump won the Republican nomination for President. The American public is fed up and they want the Imperial Presidency and this misuse of power stopped. But Republicans in power are rolling over and playing dead.

These stringent EPA regulations and grab for power over everybody and everything is a major reason why the American economy is only able to generate 1% growth.  It is vital that Trump is elected President and the severe measures of the EPA  rescinded. This situation is totally due to the belief in the man-made Global Warming Hoax.

The Federalist Papers reports:

Derrick Wilburn reports if ever there was a governmental agency gone rogue it’s the Obama Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has now become a faux-legislative body and through its vast overreach the federal government has assumed control over huge swaths of America, American industry and put tens if not hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.

Last year the EPA passed a rule granting itself power over puddles by naming them wetlands which fall under federal jurisdiction. A blatant move to allow environmental groups to sue developers, halt natural resource exploration or any other project they’d like to stop.

Now its happening again.

When farmers plow their land in preparation for planting it produces grooves in the earth called “furrows.” These furrows are bordered on each side by small ridges of dirt.

landscape, agriculture, plowed farmland in the country, visible furrows after passage of plow

landscape, agriculture, plowed farmland in the country, visible furrows after passage of plow

The EPA, in its insatiable appetite for control via new regulatory powers, has come up with another term for furrows: “mini mountain ranges.” You read correctly. This entirely absurd distinction is extremely important because, like wetlands, guess who has control over the nation’s mountain ranges? The feds. This ridiculous name –mini mountain ranges– could be enough for the federal government to seize control over private land use decisions by U.S. farmers.

This nonsense has come to light as a result of a U.S. Senate committee report.  “A Senate Report on the Expansion of Jurisdiction Claimed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act” was released September 20th. America’s two largest environmental regulation agencies, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps (that’s pronounced “core”, by the way) of Engineers proposed this regulatory rule.

The rule uses the Clean Water Act to give the two federal agencies expanded jurisdiction over private land use decisions.

Like any good rogue body the EPA is not responding to inquiries about it activities and is instead referring questions to the Department of Justice. To no one’s surprise, DOJ is also refusing to comment claiming that because the new rule is being challenged in court it cannot. Sort of like a guy claiming he’s not going to publicly release tax returns while the subject of a federal audit.

Confused by its title many mistakenly presume the Army Corps of Engineers is in some ways a military or para-military body. Not so much. The Corps is a federal agency charged with oversight of America’s waterways. On its website the agency states that “environmental sustainability” is a “guiding principle.” Tell you all you need to know?

Jason Hayes, Director of Environmental Policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act specifically exempted plowing as a “normal farming activity.” The EPA is attempting to do away with that exemption.

“The Corps even tries to argue that these newly created small mountain ranges hamper the growth and development of wetland plant species, apparently ignoring the fact that farmlands are managed to produce crops, not cattails,” Hayes said. “No reasonable regulation of the nation’s farmland can demand farmers produce crops without moving dirt, or expect farmers to produce wetland plant species instead of corn or wheat.”


Daren Bakst, a research fellow in agricultural policy at The Heritage Foundation, said it is not surprising that the EPA and Corps claim furrowing can create small mountain ranges, “Does kicking a pebble next to water create a mini-meteor? Is a puddle a mini-ocean? Who knows?” Bakst wrote.

The Senate report concludes that if the EPA and Corps of Engineers interpretations were allowed, “most if not all plowing” would be considered a “discharge of a pollutant” and require a federal permit.  Get that – U.S. farmers required to file for and obtain federal permits in order to plow their own land. And if you think those permits are going to be free or even cheap I’ve got a bridge you may be interested in.

Because this is what liberalism does.

If allowed to stand, in ten years those permits will be too expensive for all but the wealthiest of corporate-run farms and ranches. Why? All because of the left’s insatiable war on “global warming.” They don’t care how many coal-working families are put out of work, how many birds of prey are killed, nor how many family farmers are forced into bankruptcy. NOTHING is more sacred than the war against their boogeyman, climate change.

20 Reasons To Vote For Trump

There are three big reasons to vote for Trump:

  1. He will appoint Originalists to the Supreme Court
  2. He will cut taxes and regulations bringing about an economic boom
  3. He will unleash America’s energy resources encouraging business activity

American Thinker agrees and adds more:

20 reasons to vote for Donald Trump

It seems clear that this presidential election will determine whether America remains a Constitutional Republic or continues to be “Fundamentally Transformed” into something the Founders warned against and tried to prevent.

Despite this, there still remain Conservatives and Republicans who are “Never Trump”. They are either voting for a third-party candidate, not voting at all, or — in the worst choice of all — voting for Hillary Clinton. I think that is foolish. For me, a former Ted Cruz supporter, the choice is clear. I will be voting for Donald Trump.

With hat-tips to other American Thinker contributors, here are 20 specific reasons why Trump will be getting my vote:

  1. Donald Trump is “impeachable”. Any serious misstep by Trump will be exposed by the MSM and invite impeachment and removal from office. Neither political party would hesitate in bringing impeachment proceedings on Trump or in forcing him to resign. As a Democrat and the first woman president, Hillary Clinton would not be impeached no matter what she does.
  2. Trump has stated that he will appoint judges who respect the Constitution and he has issued a list of potential Supreme Court justices that confirms this.
  3. He will enforce the Rule of Law. Under Obama, there have been many acts committed by government employees, bureaucrats and elected officials –including Hillary Clinton — that are unethical or downright illegal. However, with notable exceptions, these people “skate” under the current system.
  4. Trump appreciates the work that the police do in ensuring the safety of all communities.
  5. Donald Trump knows that it is important to use the energy sources that we have in the USA and utilize techniques such as fracking and offshore drilling in order to secure these resources.
  6. Trump understands Capitalism, realizing that high taxes and regulations increase the cost of doing business and have contributed significantly to the loss of American jobs. Hillary Clinton will increase business federal taxes, payroll taxes and regulations.
  7. Trump understands finance. This means he knows that that continuing to increase the National Debt is a bad idea.
  8. He has said that treaties such as NAFTA were “badly negotiated” and that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is a disaster.
  9. Trump recognizes that a nation without borders in not a sovereign nation. WikiLeaks has revealed that Hillary Clinton wants “completely open borders”.
  10. Donald Trump sees ISIS as a “Clear and Present Danger” to the United States, the West and the Middle East. In addition, he understands that “something is wrong with Islam”.
  11. Trump has stated he will rebuild the military — which is now reduced to cannibalizing planes, vehicles and ships for spare-parts.
  12. He has called the agreement with Iran a “bad deal”. He knows it does not stop Iran’s nuclear weapon development and gives them funds to increase their conventional military forces, purchase military hardware, develop more potent ballistic missiles and finance terrorism.
  13. Trump realizes that “nation building” — especially in areas of the world not known for western-style Democracy — is a waste of lives, time and resources.
  14. Trump has correctly stated that other nations, many of them with significant wealth, have used the American umbrella of military protection and have not paid “their fair share” for it.
  15. Donald Trump has functioned as an effective executive — which is the job of the President of the United States.
  16. Trump has a history of honest business deals and integrity, as opposed to Hillary Clinton who has a history of dishonesty and shady deals.
  17. He knows all about taxes. Knowing all the loopholes used by the super-wealthy to avoid paying taxes, Trump will close the loopholes. Hillary Clinton will not do this – which is why the super-wealthy are supporting her and not “one of their own”.
  18. Trump realizes ObamaCare is a disaster. He will replace it with a free-market based system. Hillary Clinton will double-down with even more government control.
  19. Trump is unabashedly pro-American and has expressed his intention of putting America’s interests — and that of its citizens — first. That would be reflected in any negotiation with foreign entities regarding any treaty or agreement.
  20. Trump is beholden to no one except the American People. The Democrat Party has moved far to the Left and must satisfy the desires of various constituency groups. As a result, in order to maintain the votes of these “blocks”, policies are pushed that may not be in the best interests of the American people.