Posted originally on Oct 10, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Hillary Clinton believes that free speech is a severe threat to the establishment’s control, or what the socialists call their version of democracy. Clinton appeared on CNN over the weekend, where she urged for stricter guidelines on social media platforms or “we lose total control.”
The mockingbird media cannot control the narrative on social media. Individual platforms may silence the opposition and few channels exist where the public can openly and honestly express their opinions. Legacy media journalists are beholden to the same narrative and reporting the actual news is not their intended purpose. It’s why the likes of George Soros have bought up as many radio stations as possible. They can control the narrative when they control the “news,” but the people on the ground reporting what they’re seeing and completely dismantling the narrative have made it difficult for the establishment to blind the public to the truth.
Hillary Clinton said that “national action” is needed. “Sadly, our Congress has been dysfunctional when it comes to addressing these threats to our children,” she added, saying that restricting free speech should be “at the top of every legislative political agenda.”
“We should be, in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave, you know, platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted,” Clinton said. “But we now know that that was an overly simple view, that if the platforms, whether it’s Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control,” she continued. “And it’s not just the social and psychological affects, it’s real life.”
Again, very few online platforms exist that permit free speech. Clinton believes that the platforms themselves should be penalized for permitting open dialogue. She wants the government to have the ability to monitor our online interactions and control what we share to control our opinions.
Now, Kamala Harris has already stated she is open to reviewing Section 230, and Walz implemented a monitoring force in Minnesota to restrict speech and movement during COVID. Clinton previously said that Americans who share “misinformation” should be prosecuted as criminals. COVID was only a few years ago when we saw major outlets deplatform anyone who questioned the pandemic. Their conspiracies and misinformation were all proven true but the damage had been done. They even managed to deplatform a sitting president from social media.
The masses could care less about Hillary Clinton’s opinion, but Harris and Walz are tuning into her tricks and are prepared to implement these measures. They will also need to control the narrative as the economy turns down, the war cycle picks up, and the people become utterly disgruntled with governments worldwide.
Posted originally on Oct 10, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Many may assume that Donald Trump is the first to claim the election of 2020 was rigged. In fact, charges of stolen presidential elections are not as rare in American history as one may assume. Hillary Clinton convinced 70% of Democrats that Russia rigged the 2016 election as payback for her interference in the 2000 Russian election. Historically, four candidates were associated with claims of rigged elections – Al Gore, who went to the Supreme Court, Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump.
In Nixon’s case, there were rumors of voting irregularities in the 1960 race against John F. Kennedy. Those resulted in his supporters, which included President Eisenhower, demanding recounts in Texas and Illinois. However, Richard Nixon refused to move for a recount, insisting it would “tear the country to pieces.” Nixon later wrote:
“I could think of no worse example for nations abroad, who for the first time were trying to put free electoral procedures into effect, than that of the United States wrangling over the results of our presidential election, and even suggesting that the presidency itself could be stolen by thievery at the ballot box.”
In a race with four candidates, Old Hickory, as Andrew Jackson was known, captured a plurality of electoral votes in the 1824 election but not a majority. Accordingly, a constitutionally prescribed contingent election was held in the House of Representatives. Each state then cast a single ballot in which John Quincy Adams won 13 to 7. There were backroom deals, and Jackson realized that he would be defeated. Jackson wrote to a colleague alleging “intrigue” and “abuses” by scheming politicians. Like Trump, the view was that Jackson was merely a Western populist who wanted to drain the swamp to become the first president to come from neither Virginia nor Massachusetts. Jackson claimed it was an East Coast conspiracy to swing the election toward Adams from Massachusetts. Jackson then took on the East Coast conspiracy, writing:
“The People of the West have been disregarded, and demagogues barter them as sheep in the shambles.”
Jackson’s defeat by a stolen election due to regional conflicts increased his support, not unlike what we see today with the MAGA movement behind Trump. The prevailing view among Jacksonian supporters maintained that the election was pulled off by “corrupt bargains,” which became the rallying cry of Adam’s critics. Back then, almost 60% of the electorate voted for Jackson’s opponents since the 12th Amendment only stated that the House selects the president by majority with no reference to a candidate who had the most popular or electoral votes and should become president.
John Quincy Adams
In 1824, the Federalists had collapsed. The Democratic-Republican Party had won six consecutive presidential elections and was the only national political party. The fact that this election was decided by Congress resulted in the split of that party into the Democrats and Republicans (South vs. North). Jackson and his supporters believed the election was rigged based on regional competition. Jackson argued: “liberty never was in greater danger. . . . Let the Presidency be transmitted by the exercise of a corrupt patronage . . . and we shall soon consider the form of electing by the people a mere farce.” Jackson wanted to destroy what people in 1824 saw as the DEEP STATE.
When Jackson won the next election because of the shenanigans, when he was inaugurated in 1829, It was a wild spectacle – as you would expect if Trump wins. Jackson had become a national celebrity among the American people who saw him as the champion against the Deep State. Washington, D.C., residents were ill-prepared for the wild scene that unfolded when Jackson’s supporters poured into the city much like the January 6th protesters. Some commentators referred to it as an enormous mass of people to an invading barbarian horde pillaging Rome. This regional bias eventually manifested in the Civil War by 1860, which was 31.4 years later.
Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster commented: “I never saw anything like it before,” he wrote to a relative. “Persons have come 500 miles to see Genl Jackson; & they really seem to think that the Country is rescued from some dreadful danger.” Of course, Webster was very much part of the regional conflict.
When Jackson won the next election in 1828 and reelection in 1832, he took revenge on the Bank of the United States, shutting it down on the personal belief that they had funded the Northerners. His destruction of the central bank led to the Panic of 1837 and the hard times of the 1840s, and every bank began to issue its own money.
Daniel Webster legally concluded that “when a law has been passed by Congress, and approved by the president, it is now no longer in the power, either of the same president, or his successors, to say whether the law is constitutional or not.” If, according to Webster, presidents could question the constitutionality of laws that have already been passed and affirmed by the courts, this would be the effect of violating the separation of powers. He also maintained that precedent and Jackson’s argument in the veto message on the recharter of the national bank that reliance on precedent is “a dangerous thing.” One can see the bias for the Deep State in his assumptions.
In Trump’s case, it was again rigged in Congress, this time by Pelosi and the Deep State. The FBI admitted that it had so many people among the January Sixers that they most likely broke the windows and encouraged moving into the capital so Pelosi could declare emergency rules and prevent any challenge to several state counts.
Even Pelosi’s son-in-law posted his picture being present at the January 6th insurrection.
Observing Jackson’s inauguration in 1829, we can see that the “populist” movement had previously been inspired against the Deep State. This is by no means unique to Trump and MAGA. The 2025 Inauguration will be nearly 23 intervals of the 8.6-year frequency. We are also looking at 2025 as the start of war, and indeed, it is also 86 years from the 1939 invasion of Poland.
The Deep State is fighting for its very soul. I do not see them quietly accepting a Trump victory as they did with Andrew Jackson, who is regarded as the father of the Democratic Party that split South vs. North. This time, the US will indeed once again split as it did with the contentious election of Andrew Jackson.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America