Fire Earth

Earth is fighting to stay alive. Mass dieoffs, triggered by anthropogenic assault and fallout of planetary defense systems offsetting the impact, could begin anytime!

‘Election in a Dumbed Down Nation’ – Epilogue: Playing the Race Card

Posted by feww on November 9, 2016

  • Affiliates
  • CJ Members
  • EAC
  • OC Teams

U.S. Presidential Election: The Day Hillbillies Were Called Upon to Save the “Free World”

[The other choice would have been equally destructive. Prepared by an affiliated team of political scientists.]

  • Program is available from FIRE-EARTH PULSARS.
  • Affiliates may be provided with details of the presentation at Members’ discretion.


19 Responses to “‘Election in a Dumbed Down Nation’ – Epilogue: Playing the Race Card”

  1. A Hamilton said

    A final appeal to Republican Electoral College members not to vote for Donald Trump.

  2. D Scott said

    Donald Trump raises specter of treason

    A specter of treason hovers over Donald Trump. He has brought it on himself by dismissing a bipartisan call for an investigation of Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee as a “ridiculous” political attack on the legitimacy of his election as president.

    Seventeen US national intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that Russia engaged in cyberwarfare against the US presidential campaign. The lead agency, the CIA, has reached the further conclusion that Russia’s hacking was intended to influence the election in favor of Trump.

    Admiral Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency and commander of the US Cyber Command, has stated, “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.” On Thursday, a senior intelligence official disclosed that there is substantial evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin himself authorized the cyberattack.

    More at

  3. Liz B. said

    Bipartisan Electors Ask James Clapper: Release Facts on Outside Interference in U.S. Election

    Open Letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:

    We are Electors who were selected by the voters of our states to represent them in the Electoral College on December 19, 2016. We intend to discharge our duties as Electors by ensuring that we select a candidate for president who, as our Founding Fathers envisioned, would be “endowed with the requisite qualifications.” As Electors, we also believe that deliberation is at the heart of democracy itself, not an empty or formalistic task. We do not understand our sole function to be to convene in mid-December, several weeks after Election Day, and summarily cast our votes. To the contrary, the Constitution envisions the Electoral College as a deliberative body that plays a critical role in our system of government — ensuring that the American people elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve. Accordingly, to fulfill our role as Electors, we seek an informed and unrestrained opportunity to fulfill our constitutional role leading up to December 19th — that is, the ability to investigate, discuss, and deliberate with our colleagues about whom to vote for in the Electoral College.

    We further emphasize Alexander Hamilton’s assertion in Federalist Paper #68 that a core purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” The United States intelligence community has now concluded with “high confidence” that a foreign power, namely Russia, acted covertly to interfere in the presidential campaign with the intent of promoting Donald Trump’s candidacy. During the campaign Russia actively attempted to influence the election outcome through cyber attacks on our political institutions and a comprehensive propaganda campaign coordinated through Wikileaks and other outlets.

    Allegations that Donald Trump was receiving assistance from a hostile foreign power to win the election began months before Election Day. When presented with information that the Russian government was interfering in the election through the course of the campaign, both in private briefings and public assessment, Donald Trump rejected it, refused to condemn it, and continued to accept their help. Donald Trump even made a direct plea to the Russian government to interfere further in the election in a press conference on July 27, saying, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

    According to reports in the Washington Post, New York Times, and other outlets, the United States intelligence community has now concluded definitively that the Russian interference was performed to help Donald Trump get elected, yet even today Mr. Trump is refusing to accept that finding. In response to the reports, the Trump transition office instead released a statement which called into question the validity of United States intelligence findings, and declared the election over despite the Electoral College not yet casting its votes. Trump’s willingness to disregard conclusions made by the intelligence community and his continuing defense of Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin demand close scrutiny and deliberation from the Electoral College.

    Separate from Mr. Trump’s own denials of Russian involvement in the election, the confirmed communication between Trump’s aides and those associated with the Russian election interference activity raise serious concerns that must be addressed before we cast our votes. Trump-confidant Roger Stone confirmed during the campaign that he was engaged in back-channel communications with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, responsible for releasing much of the Russian-hacked Democratic communications, and indicated that he was aware of the hacked content prior to its release. Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page reportedly visited Moscow in July of this year, just prior to the release of hacked DNC communications, during which it was believed he met with the Putin aide in charge of Russian intelligence on the U.S. election. Page returned to Moscow this week where he claimed to be meeting with Russian business and thought leaders.

    In addition to Donald Trump and his aides’ conduct, revelations about their further involvement with the Russian government over the course of the campaign demand further investigation, as well as full disclosure of findings from any ongoing or closed investigative efforts:

    – Russian government officials revealed that they had maintained contact with the Trump campaign during the election, and stated that they were familiar with most of the individuals associated with Mr. Trump.

    – Media inquiries into whether the FBI was investigating Donald Trump’s July plea for Russian interference in the election resulted in a “Glomar response” neither confirming nor denying the existence of an investigation, rather than the more typical response of denying the request outright.

    – U.S. intelligence officials reportedly probed Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page in regard to travel to his Moscow during the campaign.

    – The FBI reportedly began an inquiry into Trump associates following reports of a multi-million dollar business relationship with pro-Putin figures in Ukraine and Russia, and reports of an effort to sway American public opinion in favor of Ukraine’s pro-Putin government.

    – Michael Flynn, Trump campaign aide and the announced incoming National Security Advisor, traveled to Russia in December of 2015 for a gala event celebrating RT, a state-controlled propaganda network, at which he was seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations. We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.

    Additionally, the Electors will separately require from Donald Trump conclusive evidence that he and his staff and advisors did not accept Russian interference, or otherwise collaborate during the campaign, and conclusive disavowal and repudiation of such collaboration and interference going forward.

    We hope that the information and actions described in this letter will be provided in an expeditious manner, so that we can fulfill our constitutional duty as Electors.


    Christine Pelosi (CA)

    Micheal Baca (CO)

    Anita Bonds (DC)

    Courtney Watson (MD)

    Dudley Dudley (NH)

    Bev Hollingworth (NH)

    Terie Norelli (NH)

    Carol Shea-Porter (NH)

    Clay Pell (RI)

    Chris Suprun (TX)

    Newly Added Electors:

    Vinz Koller (CA)

    Katherine Lyon (CA)

    Andres Ramos (CA)

    Jerad Sutton (CO)

    Robert Nemenich (CO)

    Jason Palitsch (MA)

    Parwez Wahid (MA)

    Paul G. Yorkis (MA)

    Robert Leonard (MD)

    Salome T. Peters (MD)

    Stuart Appelbaum (NY)

    Melissa Mark-Viverito (NY)

    Stephanie Miner (NY)

    Melissa Sklarz (NY)

    Sam H.W. Sappington (OR)

    Beth Caldwell (WA)

    Bret Chiafalo (WA)

    Deb Fitzgerald (VA)

    Terry C. Frye (VA)

    Presidential electors interested in adding their names to this letter should contact

  4. Glen C. said

    Trump is heavily indebted to the Rothschild entity for saving his butt when he was going out of business. That said, BEWARE of the bait and switch!

    People ought to do a quick FACT or FICTION check, before presuming that the CABAL would rely on FREE and FARE elections to run their EMPIRE.

  5. Scott G. said

    By nominating Elaine Chao as his transportation secretary, Trump has secured his cut in cocaine trafficking worldwide.
    He may not have been a real billionaire when he entered the elections, but if he’s allowed to continue, he will have amassed billions within a few years of being in office, thanks to his Wall Street nominees.

  6. SC said

    ID confirmation requested:

  7. Brian S. said

    The American Nightmare is about to begin. Donald Trump’s next move, judging by how his tortured twisted mind works, would be to set up his own private army, something akin to assassination squads in the banana republics. He would most probably ask Erik [Blackwater] Prince to recruit the mercenaries.
    The appointment of Betsy DeVos to secretary of Education wasn’t a random act. It was a political marriage of convenience. She’s Prince’s sister, and Trump always relies on family connections.

  8. Brad C. said

    Call for a Congressional Investigation: An Open Letter from Concerned Scholars
    Dear Senators and Representatives,

    We, the undersigned scholars who conduct research on cyber-security, national defense, authoritarian regimes, and free and fair elections, are deeply troubled by reports of hacking by foreign powers apparently intent on influencing our November 2016 elections. Reports are serious enough that former senior national security aide Michael Allen, as well as Senators Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham, have raised concerns that Russia in particular may have been involved.

    We represent a wide range of viewpoints on most issues, but on one point we agree: our polarized political climate must not prevent our elected representatives from doing what is right. In this case, what is right is simple: our country needs a thorough, public Congressional investigation into the role that foreign powers played in the months leading up to November. As representatives of the American people, Congress is best positioned to conduct an objective investigation.

    We emphasize that nothing in our collective call for an investigation is meant to question the outcome of the November election. We simply know that turning a blind eye to such involvement would send a global green light to hackers and others intent on undermining our democratic institutions.

    Nor do we prejudge the outcome of an investigation. As scholars, we give priority to evidence. The evidence made available in an investigation might show that foreign powers have played an important role, and it might show that such a role was negligible. At this juncture, we can only say that existing reports are plausible enough and publicly expressed concerns are significant enough to warrant Congress’s full attention and swift action.

    With concerns rising on both sides of the political aisle about myriad practices that challenge free and fair elections, a public investigation promises to provide the transparency needed to calm Americans’ fears and restore faith in our political process. As voting American citizens, we know that nothing could be more important for our country.


    Abu El-Haj, Tabatha (Drexel Kline School of Law)
    Adams, Laura (Institute for International Education, NED)
    Ahlquist, John (University of California, San Diego)
    Alexander, Shawn (University of Kansas)
    Alexseev, Mikhail (San Diego State University)
    Andreas, Peter (Brown University)
    Ashworth, Scott (University of Chicago)
    Avant, Deborah (Josef Korbel School, University of Denver)
    Beissinger, Mark (Princeton University)
    Bernhard, Michael (University of Florida)
    Bondarenko, Eugene (University of Michigan)
    Boylan, Jennifer (University of Florida)
    Breslauer, George (University of California, Berkeley)
    Brockington, David (University of Plymouth)
    Brock, Jeffrey (Brown University)
    Brooking, Emerson (Council on Foreign Relations)
    Bunce, Valerie (Cornell University)
    Chenoweth, Erica (University of Denver)
    Clunan, Anne (Naval Postgraduate School)
    Condit, Deirdre (Virginia Commonwealth University)
    Connelly, John (University of California, Berkeley)
    Crossley, Pamela Kyle (Dartmouth College)
    Darden, Keith (American University)
    Diamond, Larry (Stanford University)
    Diaz-Cayeros, Alberto (Stanford University)
    Duvanova, Dinissa (Lehigh University)
    Eppinger, Monica (Saint Louis University)
    Fidelis, Malgorzata (University of Illinois at Chicago)
    Finnin, Rory (Cambridge University)
    Fish, Steven (University of California, Berkeley)
    Fredrikson, Matt (Carnegie Mellon University)
    Froitzheim, John (Virginia Commonwealth University)
    Frye, Timothy (Columbia University)
    Gehlbach, Scott (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
    George, Julie (CUNY)
    Gerber, Theodore (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
    Goldberg, Robert A. (University of Utah)
    Goldman, Eric (Santa Clara University School of Law)
    Gorenberg, Dmitry (Harvard University)
    Graney, Kate (Skidmore College)
    Greene, Samuel (King’s College London)
    Greenspan, Elizabeth (University of Pennsylvania)
    Grossman, Guy (University of Pennsylvania)
    Grzymala-Busse, Anna (Stanford University)
    Guyster, William M. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
    Hands, Nicole (Purdue University)
    Hatcher, Laura (Southeast Missouri State University)
    Henry, Laura (Bowdoin College)
    Herman, Rebecca (University of California, Berkeley)
    Herrera, Yoshiko M. (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
    Hoffmann, Matthew (University of Toronto)
    Holiman, Alan (William Jewell College)
    Holmgren, Beth (Duke University)
    Hirsch, Herbert (Virginia Commonwealth University)
    Ilnytzkyj, Oleh (University of Alberta)
    Isaac, Jeffrey (Indiana University)
    Judge-Lord, Devin (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
    Kelertas, Violeta (University of Washington)
    Kempner, Joanna (Rutgers University)
    Kinsella, Helen M. (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
    Kopstein, Jeffrey (University of California, Irvine)
    Kravets, Nadiya (Harvard University)
    Labonte, Melissa (Fordham University)
    Ladokhin, Alexey (University of Kansas)
    LeBas, Adrienne (American University)
    Levi, Margaret (Stanford University)
    Levinson, Chad (University of Chicago)
    Levitas, Anthony (Brown University)
    Levitsky, Steven (Harvard University)
    Livezeanu, Irina (University of Pittsburgh)
    Lobasz, Jennifer K. (University of Delaware)
    Lynch, Julia (University of Pennsylvania)
    Marcolli, Matilde (Caltech)
    Markowitz, Lawrence (Rowan University)
    McFaul, Michael (Stanford University)
    McLean, Eden (Auburn University)
    Meserve, Joy (University of California, San Diego)
    Meyers, Tom (Miami University (Oxford))
    Newmann, William W. (Virginia Commonwealth University)
    Novy, Marianne (University of Pittsburgh)
    Omelicheva, Mariya Y. (University of Kansas)
    Orttung, Robert (George Washington University)
    Pearce, Katy (University of Washington)
    Pepinsky, Thomas (Cornell University)
    Perrin, Andrew J. (University of North Carolina)
    Peterson, Maya (University of California, Santa Cruz)
    Pylypiuk, Natalia (University of Alberta)
    Richter, James (Bates College)
    Roberts, Kenneth (Cornell University)
    Rodine-Hardy, Kirsten (Northeastern University)
    Saivetz, Carol (MIT)
    Schaffer, Frederic (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
    Schatz, Edward (University of Toronto)
    Schmemann, Alex (George Washington University)
    Schoenman, Roger (University of California, Santa Cruz)
    Shapiro, Jacob (Princeton University)
    Shevel, Oxana (Tufts University)
    Shore, Marci (Yale University)
    Sievers, Sara (Notre Dame University)
    Singh, J.P. (University of Edinburgh and George Mason University)
    Slater, Dan (University of Chicago)
    Smith, Benjamin (University of Florida)
    Snyder, Timothy (Yale University)
    Sokhey, Sarah Wilson (University of Colorado, Boulder)
    Solonari, Vladimir (University of Central Florida)
    Sperling, Valerie (Clark University)
    Staniland, Paul (University of Chicago)
    Svolik, Milan (Yale University)
    Tan, Amy (New York University)
    Tillman, Erik (DePaul University)
    Triesman, Daniel (University of California, Los Angeles)
    Truex, Rory (Princeton University)
    Twigg, Judy (Virginia Commonwealth University)
    Van Horn, David (University of Maryland)
    Vlasic, Mark (Georgetown Law)
    Way, Lucan (University of Toronto)
    Wedeen, Lisa (University of Chicago)
    Weeks, Jessica (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
    Weiss, Meredith (University at Albany, SUNY)
    Welch, David (University of Waterloo)
    Weldon, Laurel (Purdue University)
    Werner, Cynthia (Texas A&M University)
    White, Bebo (Stanford University)
    Wishnick, Elizabeth (Montclair State University)
    Wong, Wendy (University of Toronto)
    Yang, Jean (Carnegie Mellon University)

    (126 signatures, current as of Wednesday November 23 at 2:45PM)

  9. J. R. said

    Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States

    “Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been…”
    “Some Democrats are pushing for Hillary Clinton to seek a recount in Wisconsin amid hacking fears, but time is running out for their party’s nominee and state election officials say they are unaware of problems with the vote tally.

    “Clinton, who lost the Nov. 8 election in Wisconsin by some 27,000 votes to Donald Trump, has until Friday to seek a recount. Her campaign would have to pay for it because she lost by more than 0.25%.”

    Election results may have been hacked in three swing states Trump won, activists want Clinton to seek recount
    ” A prominent group of election lawyers and computer scientists said presidential election results in three swing states that Donald Trump won may have been manipulated or hacked, and are pressing Hillary Clinton to seek a recount, according to a report.”

  10. an observer said

    Trump represents the fossil fuel mafia, among others, and would have won the election, even with zero votes.

  11. Disgusted Voter said

    There’s NO reason to believe the system is fair, and certainly NO way to verify its integrity. The US election system is rigged from the word go!

    To start with, the two-party system – two sides of the same political coin – removes any real choice for proper nominees.

    The cabal picks the president to protect its own interest. If/when a last-minute change is needed, the Electoral College system makes rigging extremely easy by virtue of its design.

    Their last-minute decision to switch to Trump is consistent with how the BREXIT referendum was manipulated in the UK, supporting the urgent move to the RIGHT (WHITE) in Europe.

    Russia shares exactly the same anti-immigration sentiments, so their interference should come as no surprise.

    Do they really expect us to believe that a bunch of under-educated white males in backwater America decides the fate of the free world???

    • Another Disgusted Voter said

      “the Electoral College system makes rigging extremely easy by virtue of its design.”

      Evidently, that’s exactly what happened.

      Is there anything in our sociopolitical system that’s not rigged?

  12. Dave S. said

    Are the US Elections rigged?

    • Justin J. said

      Ask that question again, a day after the real perpetrators of 9/11 (incl. Rudy Giuliani) have been brought to justice.

      Trump’s threat to accept the election result only if he won was NOT an empty threat, and it worked!

      Meanwhile, watch how Mr Trump and his in-laws (the bagmen) will rob the White House silver, and drive America to major bankruptcy.

  13. BW said


    On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine – which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!

    We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?

    Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.

    Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.

    Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump “won” is because of the Electoral College.

  14. Pam R. said

    Before Taking the White House, Trump Due in Court over Fraud
    The class-action case against Trump University is just one of many pending legal battles for the president-elect.

    Just weeks before Donald Trump is sworn in as the next commander-in-chief, the president-elect is due in court to defend himself against allegations of fraud in a major class-action civil trial. After failing to persuade a federal judge to delay his November 28 trial date, Trump will take the witness stand this month as he confronts a host of former Trump University students who claim they were duped into paying as much as $35,000 for largely useless real-estate seminars.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation is also looking into one of Trump’s closest aides, Paul Manafort, and his business ties to Russia. (Both Manafort and the Trump campaign have strenuously denied any wrongdoing.) According to a public letter from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the bureau has been withholding “explosive information” linking Trump and his top advisers to the Russian government.

    President-elect Trump due to appear in court at trial starting later this month
    In addition to several suits over Trump University, Trump has threatened lawsuits against a dozen or more women who’ve accused him of sexual impropriety in recent months—and several of those women have threatened to countersue if he comes after them.

    There’s also a New York state investigation into his charitable foundation and a reported federal investigation into some of his advisers’ ties to Russia.

    • JDM said

      Inside Donald Trump’s Ongoing Legal Battles — and Whether Any Could Stop Him from Becoming President
      Kaufman said that while, as president, Trump would have some immunity from lawsuits, it wouldn’t cover suits filed against him before his election.

      “Taking the office would not protect Mr. Trump from lawsuits that have been filed against him already or lawsuits that could be filed against him for civil matters that arose before he became President,” said Kaufman. “Having said that, there would be a mountain of logistical issues in trying to pursue a civil claim against a President.”

      As for whether the case could affect Trump’s presidency, University of Utah Law Professor Christopher Lewis Peterson wrote an article arguing that there is already enough evidence in the fraud case for Congress to impeach Trump.

      He wrote, “A federal judge appointed under Article III of the U.S. Constitution has already determined that Trump’s alleged actions, if true, constitute fraud and racketeering … Congress would be well within its legal rights under the Constitution to insist upon a President who is not a fraudster or a racketeer as defined in its own law.”

      Trump University and Presidential Impeachment

      Christopher Lewis Peterson, University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law – September 20, 2016

      In the final weeks of the 2016 Presidential campaign Donald J. Trump faces three lawsuits accusing him of fraud and racketeering. These ongoing cases focus on a series of wealth seminars called “Trump University” which collected over $40 million from consumers seeking to learn Trump’s real estate investing strategies. Although these consumer protection cases are civil proceedings, the underlying legal elements in several counts that plaintiffs seek to prove run parallel to the legal elements of serious crimes under both state and federal law. This essay provides a legal analysis of whether Trump’s alleged behavior would, if proven, rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the presidential impeachment clause of the United States Constitution. This essay begins with a summary of the evidence assembled in the three pending Trump University civil lawsuits. Next, it describes the legal claims involved in each matter. Then, this essay summarizes the applicable law of presidential impeachment under the United States Constitution and analyzes whether Trump’s actions in connection with Trump University are impeachable offenses. Finally, I offer concluding thoughts, considering in particular the policy implications of a major presidential campaign with simultaneously pending legal complaints of fraud and racketeering.

      Number of Pages in PDF File: 22

      Keywords: impeachment, Trump, Trump University, fraud, racketeering, RICO, high crimes and misdemeanors, president, election, campaign, consumer, class action

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.