Skip to main content

If You Vote Hillary You Are Complicit In War-Crimes.

I have been saying this for years, and I'll say it again, you now have enough evidence, if you vote Hillary you are complicit in war crimes.

Here is a previous post I did on Hillary

And I highly recommend checking out the watertight case I make here (to give you a sense of how to frame this)

Clinton not only supported the coup in Libya, but she has supported the war in Syria, because they want their precious oil pipeline, she also supported the coup in Ukraine, and, Honduras.
Obama and Clinton have spread death and chaos in the Middle East, both have been worse than the grand master of chaos, war criminal George Bush in this respect. In their stubborn insistence that Assad be removed from power, which runs counter to international laws, their policies that created death and chaos in Syria, Libya, and the coup they supported in Ukraine that lead to Crimea joining with Russia, (which they blame Russia for) . . . all of this has lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of non-American lives, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of non-American refugees . . . . . which leads to the real question, why is it that the lives of non-Americans are so cheap to Obama and Clinton?
Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist Says Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Approved Sending Sarin Gas To Syrian Rebels…/hillary-clinton-pulitzer-prize-…/
This is a link to the UN's report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I would challenge anyone to find the place in the report that concludes that it was Assad who used the chemical weapons. The truth is, that while the UN concludes that chemical weapons were used, there is nothing whatsoever that states that it was Assad who used them.
The Clinton - Kissinger connection - the Connoisseur of Chaos - She loves him.…/henry-kissingers-war-crimes-are…/
Clinton’s Charity Ties With Oligarchs Behind Ukrainian Coup Revealed
Clinton Bull Shit Story . . . So there were 795 emails in 2011 pile, and only 67 emails in the 2012 pile. 67 / 795 = .084 . . . . So 2012, when the year of the attack, only about 8% as many emails appear than the number of emails in 2011 . . . . Not credible at all . . . . . Clearly she had to have deleted a hell of a lot of them? Where the fuck are all her 2012 emails?

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…