Friday, March 24, 2017


This is an expose the logical explanation of why they did it!!
Wire tapping, Eavesdropping, Surveilance of the Donald Trump Team. Dirty Tricks Campaign of THE OBAMA CABAL!

Obama and his White House surveiled the Trump Team starting in June/July 2016. They used a covert team of embedded Intelligence Operatives loyal to George Soros and the Axis of Domestic Evil.

They were convinced at that time that Hillary would win so they did not cover their tracks as efficiently as they would have in any other environment.

Hillary Lost, and the operatives continued under instructions from the Obama Administration to surveil the Trump transition team to see if there was anything that they could use to implicate the new Administration and remove them.

Why you might ask? 
Think of the impending losses for the Axis of Domestic Evil.
3 Supreme Court Picks ... GONE..
Obama Care .. GONE..
The Immigration Policy to "Brown" America through open borders.. GONE..
Redistribution of Wealth .. GONE
Climate Change .. GONE
EPA and its anti energy Policy .. GONE
XL Pipe Line block and the Fossil Fuel destruction.. GONE
Pro Islam Policy .. GONE
Gun Control Plans.. GONE

They were in a panic.

Then as the Inauguration drew closer and closer and they could not dislodge Donald Trump by Recounts and Electoral College Vote count scams.. They realized that they might be exposed.. so Obama signed Executive Order 12333

Yes... in the Final days of the LAME DUCK , the Obama Administration, they expanded the power of the National Security Agency (NSA) to "share" intercepted personal communication with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying any privacy protections. The new rules were issued under section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 after approval by two Obama Administration officials: Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Director of National Intelligence Director, James Clapper.

Think about it in the context of why they did it. It could not be for National Security reasons. They were leaving in 10 days. Was there something that needed this rule 10 DAYS BEFORE THE END OF AN ADMINISTRATION ?

The Answer.. YES.. They needed to Cover their tracks so it could look like others could have leaked or looked at the information they had secretly been surveiling Donald Trump for over 12 months. They needed to create a fake trail. There is no other logical explanation.
see... the new rules, which were issued in an unclassified document, entitled Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency (NSA), significantly relaxed longstanding limits on what the NSA may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations. These operations are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. Surveillances include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls, and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches. All SET UP 10 DAYS BEFORE LEAVING TO ATTEMPT TO COVER THE TRACKS OF THE OBAMA ADMIN OPERATIVES.

The changes initiated by the Obama Administration in its waning days was a plan to empower a whole lot more agents and officials to search and view raw intelligence data that the OBAMA OPERATIVES HAD SURVEILED OVER THE PAST 6 MONTHS.
The plan was to make sure that intel leaks would possibly grow exponentially and so dilute by expanding the number of people that could be implicated. This allowed the Obama Operatives to hide like a needle in a larger haystack.

Obama Lackeys Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed the new rules permitting the NSA to disseminate raw signals intelligence information on January 3, 2017 after another Obama Lackey and proven Liar Director of National Intelligence James Clapper signed them on December 15, 2016. Ask yourself why the urgency ?
Prior to these changes, the NSA filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency such as the CIA or the intelligence branches of the FBI. The NSA only passed on information deemed pertinent before the new order screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information. 

Now intelligence agencies can search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the NSA and then apply such rules as required for minimizing privacy intrusions. This allowed oversight committees to be able to track the chain of control of any data. With the new Rules the net was spread wide to COVER THE TRACKS OF THE OBAMA OPERATIVES.

Under the new rules, agencies and individuals can ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance feeds premised on the claim that they contain relevant information that is useful to a particular mission. Then the NSA has the discretion to grant such requests if it deems the request reasonable. Properly understood, the contents of the conversations engaged in by members of the Trump Administration and by President Trump himself are now under an increasing risk that they will be exposed to the public for purposes of embarrassing the Trump Administration and in order to impede the effectiveness of his policies.

The Obama Administration’s change in policy has grave implications for former National Security Adviser General Flynn and other Trump Administration officials. Under the new Obama Administration rules, conversations were and are subject to being shared with a wider network of individuals and operatives. This process multiplies the likelihood of leaks and the number of people who could be doing the leaking. Although proof of cause and effect may be difficult, consider the following record, which appears to be far more than coincidental. How Convenient eh ? They thought they had a foolproof way to cover their tracks. Too many eyes saw the raw data so they could blame it on "Rouge Agents of the Deep State"
So Back to my Original premise...
This is an operation that went sideways because Hillary did not win. They pinned all their hopes to MAINTAIN the DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA on Hillary winning.

When Donald Trump won... it messed up their whole long game plan. George Soros and his Axis of Domestic Evil... were forced to regroup.

This ACT of SPYING ON THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION has the signature of all Leftist and Islamic State actions. This is the way they play.

They infiltrate a Country using the rules of the State and then slowly bend and manipulate a little piece at a time and the populace does not notice that another little slice of their Republic has been chipped away. Like the proverbial Frog in a pot of slow boiled water.
Getting Hillary elected was to put the Final Nail in the Coffin of the Republic that our Founding Fathers created.


Now we need to eviscerate the Cabal. Find out who knew what .. and when did they know it and once we prove the obvious.. PUNISH THEM. THIS IS TREASON TO THE REPUBLIC.


Wednesday, March 22, 2017


FBI director James "slick" Comey received millions from Clinton Foundation. Why you ask ?? Well..his brother’s law firm does Clinton’s taxes!  

Read up...

A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.

These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
Lockheed Martin
When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.
But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year.

Comey served as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft for two years of the Bush administration. When he left the Bush administration, he went directly to Lockheed Martin and became vice president, acting as a general counsel.How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation.

Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010.
According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010.
In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department.
HSBC Holdings
In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings.
“Mr. Comey’s appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” according to HSBC company records.
HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. For instance, HSBC Holdings has partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to “retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector” in “New York City.”
“Retrofitting” refers to a Green initiative to conserve energy in commercial housing units. Clinton Foundation records show that the Foundation projected “$1 billion in financing” for this Green initiative to conserve people’s energy in low-income housing units.
Who Is Peter Comey?
When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey,” a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website.
Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper. James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing.
DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base.
DLA Piper ranks #5 on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs.
And here is another thing: Peter Comey has a mortgage on his house that is owned by his brother James Comey, the FBI director.
Peter Comey’s financial records, obtained by Breitbart News, show that he bought a $950,000 house in Vienna, Virginia, in June 2008. He needed a $712,500 mortgage from First Savings Mortgage Corporation.

But on January 31, 2011, James Comey and his wife stepped in to become Private Party lenders. They granted a mortgage on the house for $711,000. Financial records suggest that Peter Comey took out two such mortgages from his brother that day.
This financial relationship between the Comey brothers began prior to James Comey’s nomination to become director of the FBI.
DLA Piper did not answer any question as to whether James Comey and Peter Comey spoke at any point about this mortgage or anything else during the Clinton email investigation.



The feds arrested an executive from the scandal-plagued global bank named HSBC.

Mark Johnson was arrested for conspiring to take advantage of insider information and other charges.
HSBC  has been hot water many times and paid billions of dollars to settle money-laundering charges and mortgage abuses.

They were also involved in a YUGE tax evasion scandal, where HSBC enabled thousands of Americans and others – including drug traffickers, arms dealers and “wealthy power players” around the world – to avoid taxes by hiding their money in a Swiss bank they owned.
These are unscrupulous people.
So, of course, Hillary Clinton is tied to them.

However, not just Hillary, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and even Barack Obama, has ties to the criminal organization at HSBC.
Loretta Lynch testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington

Loretta Lynch’s Ties:
Loretta Lynch – then the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Manhattan – reportedly brokered the deal with Holder, that allowed HSBC to pay fines instead of being criminally charged.  The settlement was highly criticized, and Lynch and Holder were accused of acting as if the bank was “too big to prosecute,” and people likened the fine (without criminal charges) to a parking ticket.
James Comey’s Ties:
James Comey was nominated by Obama for a post on HSBC’s Board of Directors in June 2012, and he was subsequently appointed to the board on March 4, 2013.  He served on the HSBC’s Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee.  Comey’s appointment was for three years, however, he resigned effective Sept. 4, 2013, following his confirmation to serve as FBI Director.
Hillary Clinton Campigns In Iowa, Meeting With Small Business Owners
Hillary Clinton’s Ties:
Hillary Clinton also benefited from HSBC’s Swiss bank account division  during the same time period – leaked files revealed the identities of at least seven donors who were HSBC clients and contributed to the Clinton Foundation – to the tune of $81 million in total contributions.
It seems like every time you turn around Hillary is tied to another scandal or unscrupulous organization.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017



Only a Hysterical Idiot would believe the FBI’s allegation that Infowars and Breitbart and RT could infiltrate the election system to swing the election to Donald Trump!

FBI = Fucked-up Bureau of Investigation

The FBI really knows who interfered in the election but the hired gun of the establishment is working to discredit the NEW MEDIA! 

Let me list the real menace.. the list of pro Hillary ie., Pro George Soros anti Conservative Anti Israel anti American  gaggle of Media and their cohorts
New York Times
Washington Post




TRUTH BE TOLD these media outlets have blocked banned and harassed me for years because I am an ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.. I SURE AS HELL DO NOT WORK FOR ANY FUCKING RUSSIANS!

The revelation that the FBI is investigating whether Infowars and Breitbart, assisted in helping Russian operatives as part of a secret cyber operation to help Donald Trump win the presidency is the ludicrous culmination of four months of wall to wall leftist hysteria about Moscow “hacking” the election.
Federal investigators will probe whether Russian operatives created bots to blitz social media with pro-Trump stories that harmed Hillary Clinton’s campaign, including links from Infowars, RT, and Breitbart.
“Investigators examining the bot attacks are exploring whether the far-right news operations took any actions to assist Russia’s operatives. Their participation, however, wasn’t necessary for the bots to amplify their news through Twitter and Facebook,” reports McClatchy.
Having failed to stymie our accelerating growth for over a decade, long before “Russian hacking” or “fake news” was even a thing, this partisan investigation is a transparent attempt to silence and censor Infowars by ludicrously impugning us as a conduit for Kremlin propaganda.
It’s also incredibly ironic given that the only evidence of tech outfits interfering in the election to deliberately help a certain candidate implicates Google, Facebook and Twitter in manipulating their own algorithms to aid Hillary Clinton.
As we’ve seen from the establishment’s fake news narrative, this is nothing less than a ruse to try to ban legitimate news coverage and dissenting opinion, despite a Stanford University study which found that fake news had no impact on the outcome of the presidential election and if anything benefited Hillary Clinton.
By declaring Infowars to be little more than a front for Russian bots, with no evidence whatsoever, this provides Facebook, YouTube and Twitter a pretext with which to ban and censor our content.
In reality, it’s these very companies, cheered on by the left, that used techniques not too dissimilar to the claims about Russian bots to game their own algorithms in a desperate attempt to boost Hillary Clinton’s chances.
Two months before the election, psychologist Robert Epstein and SourceFeed’s Matt Lieberman both exposed how Google was manipulating search results in relation to Hillary Clinton to ensure “autocomplete suggestions were biased in favour of Clinton”.
Typing in “Hillary Clinton is” to Google only returned positive suggested results, whereas when users searched identical terms in other search engines such as Bing or Yahoo, the first results suggested were things like, “Hillary Clinton is a liar,” or “Hillary Clinton is a criminal”.
This manipulation had the power to “shift as many as 3 million votes,” according to Epstein.
Wikileaks emails also revealed that John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager, sought to have “discreet conversations” with the likes of Apple, Facebook and Google.
Other emails reveal that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg wanted to meet with the Clinton campaign, while Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg did meet with Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills in 2015.
In May 2016, it was reported that Facebook ordered its staff to suppress stories deemed of interest or beneficial to conservatives by manipulating its “trending” section to block them out.
Facebook staff also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” subjects into the trending section that were not organically trending.
Twitter was also doing its best to bury negative information about Hillary. In February 2016, Vocative revealed how the company was censoring hashtags that made the Democratic candidate look bad.
The hashtags #WhichHillary and #WhichHillaryCensored were removed from Twitter’s trends list despite being considerably more active than other hashtags that were allowed to trend.
The mainstream media’s constant barrage of fake news which suggested Hillary was anything up to 98% certain to win the presidency was also a deliberate attempt to manipulate Trump supporters by convincing them their vote was worthless.
All of these examples of tech companies deliberately gaming their algorithms to help Hillary are documented, whereas conspiracy theories about Infowars working with Russian bots are backed up by nothing but hot air.
We are being accused, with zero evidence, of the exact kind of manipulation that Facebook, Google & Twitter oversaw to help Hillary.
It’s also worth remembering that the ‘Russian bots control Infowars’ conspiracy originated from Louise Mensch, who also thinks Putin had Breitbart murdered and was exposed in the Wikileaks release of John Podesta’s emails as being a Hillary Clinton sycophant.
If the FBI really wants to get to the bottom of who interfered in the election – we suggest they start by investigating Google, Facebook and Twitter.
The only interference Infowars had in the election is to make the better arguments – for that we are guilty as charged.
Unfortunately for the left, their obsession with baseless, paranoid delusions about vast Russian conspiracies will continue to hinder any kind of real examination as to why they lost – and that can only be a good thing for conservatives.



Wednesday, February 22, 2017




I have this novel idea. Read the whole post and tell me what you think. Understand the population concept please! 

America needs to be repopulated with people who have the same cultural values as we do. So we need to start a movement to take in European "refugees". 

They are from the same stock as most of you are. Now since their countries are being over run by Muslim Hordes who ghettoize their cities and rape and murder the local population many are fleeing. 

Why should refugees only be from Muslim or 3rd world countries? Look I am not saying we excluded other countries.. but we need to include the hardworking conservative middle class in Europe that is being squeezed by the elites and the migrant refugees there! Their forefathers came to America in the 18th and 19th century and made America what it is TODAY!.

So... I call on all the Trump Administration to formulate an executive order to allow displaced Europeans who do not feel safe in their countries TO COME OVER TO AMERICA for asylum and Refuge from Muslims invading their homelands.

Bring your money, bring your families and bring your enterprises and helps us repopulate AMERICA with people who will work hard and MAKE America Great Again.

We have been told that we are a Nation of Immigrants right ? No matter what the color of their skin ?? Right ? Well Displaced European Caucasians can be REFUGEES TOO!

Look the refugees coming would be hard core conservative types who are sick and tired of their Liberal Socialist Leaders bringing in Refugees from the 3rd world and expecting them to foot the bill and destroy their own culture.

America is being diluted of the original immigrants who are hardworking and have almost the same values as we do. The reality is that our European Population is being replaced by other races not just because of immigration laws but because Whites have fewer children and as this link to video I posted explains.. It takes 2.1 Kids per family to just SUSTAIN A CULTURE!

Our culture will die off if we do not have a plan to repopulate America... What kind of people do you want to repopulate with ???
Watch this video please !

What do you think people ?? I would like to hear your input!

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, so his signature on any Bill or Executive order is Null and Void.

Since the Left is so hell bent on trying to de-legitimize Trump.... I call for a movement  a REVIVAL of the movement to prove once and for all that Obama was illegally installed as President.


U.S. Constitution
Article III Section 3
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
George Soros and Obama and his Thugs and the IslamoAfrocentric front and the Anti American Hispanic Coalition are all in violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution allows for change only through the passing of amendments that must be ratified.
Any ACT to modify America through any other means including Judicial Activism or through Mob rule ARE ACTS OF TREASON.



Here are some facts from 2008 that have never been clarified or ruled on.

Nancy Pelosi and the DNC sent an Official Certification of Nomination to the Secretary of State in each of the 50 states.  Most of those certifications merely certified that Obama and Biden had been nominated.  Hawaii is different.  Hawaii requires that the party ALSO certify that the nominees are legally qualified, under the provisions of the United States Constitution, to serve in those offices.

Here is what Nancy Pelosi and the DNC sent to the Hawaiian Secretary of State:
OK, Speaker Pelosi, How Did the DNC Certify Obama’s Eligibility?
The Constitution requires that Obama be a natural born citizen:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
The 1787 signers of the Constitution understood “natural born Citizen” as it was described in the 1758 book:
The Law of Nations, or Principles of The Law of Nature applied to the conduct and affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Book 1, Sections 212 and 215:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children … in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular …
The 14th Amendment does not speak to who is a natural born citizen, it only speaks to who is a citizen.  Qualifying as a citizen under the 14th Amendment does not automatically qualify someone as a natural born citizen.  One must look at the citizenship of the parents, as well as birth location, to determine if someone qualifies as a natural born citizen.
Divorce records show that Barack Hussein Obama married Stanley Ann Dunham Obama on February 2, 1961 and Barack Hussein Obama II was born August 4, 1961.   Barack Hussein Obama  was never a United States citizen.  He was first a British subject, and later a citizen of Kenya. 
By Natural Law, The Law of Nations, and The British Nationality Act of 1948, British citizenship was passed from the father, Barack Hussein Obama, to his son, Barack Hussein Obama II. 
Barack Hussein Obama II’s own campaign admits this at

As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
To be a natural born citizen of the United States, three conditions must be met:
1) Born “in the country” (on U.S. soil).
2) Born to a father who is a U.S. citizen.
3) Born to a mother who is a U.S. citizen.

If any one of those conditions is not met, then the person is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and they are not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander in Chief of all of our Armed Forces.
John Sydney McCain III fails to meet the first condition (he was born on Panamanian soil, not U.S. soil).  It is a lie to say that McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone. He was not.  While the Certificate of Birth below says “The Panama Canal Health Department”, it shows that McCain was born at Colón Hospital in the city of Colón, Republic of Panama (R. P.).  The city of Colón was not in the Panama Canal Zone and was not U.S. soil.


Barack Hussein Obama II fails to meet the second condition
(his father was not a United States citizen). He may also fail to meet the first condition (more evidence exists to show that he was born in Kenya than exists to show he was born in Hawaii), but that is superfluous. BHOII is already conclusively ineligible because he fails to meet the second condition, regardless of whether or not he meets the first condition.

SO... since the Left is so hell bent on trying to de-legitimize Trump.... I call for a movement  a REVIVAL of the movement to prove once and for all that Obama was illegally installed as President.

Sunday, December 25, 2016

From 2008 a Prognostication. Amazingly accurate. A MUST READ!



This is a paper presented several weeks ago by Herb Meyer at a Davos, Switzerland meeting which was attended by most CEOs of major international corporations -- it is a very good summary of today's key trends and a perspective one seldom sees

Meyer served during the Reagan administration as special assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council.  In these positions, he managed production of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimates and other top-secret projections for the President and his national security advisers

Meyer is widely credited with being the first senior U.S. Government official to forecast the  Soviet Union's collapse, for which he later was awarded the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, the intelligence community's highest honour. Formerly an associate editor of FORTUNE, he is also the author of several books.

Currently, there are four major transformations that are shaping political, economic and world events. These transformations have profound implications for American business leaders and owners, our culture and our way of life

  1. The War in  Iraq
There are three major monotheistic religions in the world: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the 16th century, Judaism and Christianity reconciled with the modern world. The rabbis, priests and scholars found a way to settle up and pave the way forward. Religion remained at the center of
life, church and state became separate. Rule of law, idea of economic liberty, individual rights, human rights - all these are defining point of modern Western civilization. These concepts started with the Greeks but didn't take off until the 15th and 16th century when Judaism and Christianity found a way to reconcile with the modern world.  When that happened, it unleashed the scientific revolution and the greatest outpouring of art, literature and music the world has ever known.

Islam, which developed in the 7th century, counts millions of Moslems around the world who are normal people. However, there is a radical streak within Islam. When the radicals are in charge, Islam attacks Western civilization.  Islam first attacked Western civilization in the 7th century, and later in the 16th and 17th centuries. By 1683, the Moslems (Turks from the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates of Vienna . It was in  Vienna  that the climatic battle between Islam and Western civilization took place. The West won and went forward. Islam lost and went backward. Interestingly, the date of that battle was September 11.Since then, Islam has not found a way to reconcile with the modern world.

Today, terrorism is the third attack on Western civilization by radical Islam. To deal with terrorism, the  U.S.  is doing two things. First, units of our armed forces are in 30 countries around the world hunting down terrorist groups and dealing with them. This gets very little publicity. Second we are taking military action in Afghanistan  and  Iraq . These actions are covered relentlessly by the media. People can argue about whether the war in  Iraq  is right or wrong. However, the underlying strategy behind the war is to use our military to remove the radicals from power and give the moderates a chance. Our hope is that, over time, the moderates will find a way to bring Islam forward into the 21st century. That's what our involvement in  Iraq and Afghanistan  is all about.

The lesson of 9/11 is that we live in a world where a small number of people can kill a large number of people very quickly. They can use airplanes, bombs, anthrax, chemical weapons or dirty bombs. Even with a first-rate intelligence service (which the  U.S.  does not have), you can't stop every attack. That means our tolerance for political horseplay has dropped to zero. No longer will we play games with terrorists or weapons of mass destruction
Most of the instability and horseplay is coming from the  Middle East . That's why we have thought that if we could knock out the radicals and give the moderates a chance to hold power they might find a way to reconcile Islam with the modern world. So when looking at  Afghanistan  or  Iraq , it's important to look for any signs that they are modernizing
For example, women being brought into the work force and colleges in. Afghanistan  is good. The Iraqis stumbling toward a constitution is good. People can argue about what the  U.S.  is doing and how we're doing it, but anything that suggests Islam is finding its way forward is good.

2. The Emergence of  China
In the last 20 years,  China  has moved 250 million people from the farms and villages into the cities. Their plan is to move another 300 million in the next 20 years. When you put that many people into the cities, you have to find work for them.  That's why  China  is addicted to manufacturing; they have to put all the relocated people to work. When we decide to manufacture something in the  U.S. , it's based on market needs and the opportunity to make a profit. In China , they make the decision because they want the jobs, which is a very different calculation

While  China  is addicted to manufacturing, Americans are addicted to low prices. As a result, a unique kind of economic codependency has developed between the two countries. If we ever stop buying from  China , they will explode politically. If  China  stops selling to us, our economy will take a huge hit because prices will jump. We are subsidizing their economic development; they are subsidizing our economic growth. Because of their huge growth in manufacturing, China  is hungry for raw materials, which drive prices up worldwide. China is also thirsty for oil, which is one reason oil is now at $100 a barrel. By 2020,  China  will produce more cars than the U.S. China is also buying its way into the oil infrastructure around the world. They are doing it in the open market and paying fair market prices, but millions of barrels of oil that would have gone to the U.S.  are now going to  China . China 's quest to assure it has the oil it needs to fuel its economy is a major factor in world politics and economics
We have our Navy fleets protecting the sea lines, specifically the ability to get the tankers through.  It won't be long before the Chinese have an aircraft carrier sitting in the  Persian Gulf  as well. The question is, will their aircraft carrier be pointing in the same direction as ours or against us?
3. Shifting Demographics of Western Civilization
Most countries in the Western world have stopped breeding. For a civilization obsessed with sex, this is remarkable. Maintaining a steady population requires a birth rate of 2.1. In  Western Europe , the birth rate currently stands at 1.5, or 30 percent below replacement. In 30 year there will be 70 to 80 million fewer Europeans than there are today. The current birth rate in Germany  is 1.3. Italy  and  Spain are even lower at 1.2. At that rate, the working age population declines by 30 percent in 20 years, which has a huge impact on the economy.  When you don't have young workers to replace the older ones, you have to import them
The European countries are currently importing Moslems. Today, the Moslems comprise 10 percent of  France  and  Germany , and the percentage is rising rapidly because they have higher birthrates. However, the Moslem populations are not being integrated into the cultures of their host countries, which is a political catastrophe. One reason  Germany  and  France don't support the  Iraq  war is they fear their Moslem populations will explode on them. By 2020, more than half of all births in the  Netherlands will be non-European. The huge design flaw in the postmodern secular state is that you need a traditional religious society birth rate to sustain it. The Europeans simply don't wish to have children, so they are dying.  In Japan , the birthrate is 1.3. As a result,  Japan  will lose up to 60 million people over the next 30 years. Because  Japan  has a very different society than Europe , they refuse to import workers. Instead, they are just shutting down. Japan has already closed 2,000 schools, and is closing them down at the rate of 300 per year.   Japan  is also aging very rapidly. By 2020, one out of every five Japanese will be at least 70 years old. Nobody has any idea about how to run an economy with those demographics
Europe and Japan , which comprise two of the world's major economic engines aren't merely in recession they're shutting down. This will have a huge impact on the world economy, and it is already beginning to happen. Why are the birthrates so low? There is a direct correlation between abandonment of traditional religious society and a drop in birth rate, and Christianity in Europe  is becoming irrelevant.
  The second reason is economic. When the birth rate drops below replacement, the population ages. With fewer working people to support more retired people, it puts a crushing tax burden on the smaller group of working age people. As a result, young people delay marriage and having a family. Once this trend starts, the downward spiral only gets worse. These countries have abandoned all the traditions they formerly held in regard to having families and raising children.

The  U.S.  birth rate is 2.0, just below replacement. We have an increase in population because of immigration. When broken down by ethnicity, the Anglo birth rate is 1.6 (same as  France  ) while the Hispanic birth rate is 2.7. In the  U.S. , the baby boomers are starting to retire in massive numbers. This will push the elder dependency ratio from 19 to 38 over the next 10 to 15 years. This is not as bad as Europe , but still represents the same kind of trend
Western civilization seems to have forgotten what every primitive society understands -- you need kids to have a healthy society. Children are huge consumers. Then they grow up to become taxpayers. That's how a society works, but the postmodern secular state seems to have forgotten that. If U.S.  birth rates of the past 20 to 30 years had been the same as post-World War II, there would be no Social Security or Medicare problems
The world's most effective birth control device is money. As society creates a middle class and women move into the workforce, birth rates drop. Having large families is incompatible with middle class living.  The quickest way to drop the birth rate is through rapid economic development After World War II, the  U.S.  instituted a $600 tax credit per child. The idea was to enable mom and dad to have four children without being troubled by taxes. This led to a baby boom of 22 million kids, which was a huge consumer market. That turned into a huge tax base. However, to match that incentive in today's dollars would cost $12,000 per child
China and India do not have declining populations. However, in both countries, there is a preference for boys over girls, and we now have the technology to know which is which before they are born. In  China and  India , families are aborting the girls. As a result, in each of these countries there are 70 million boys growing up who will never find wives. When left alone, nature produces 103 boys for every 100 girls. In some provinces, however, the ratio is 128 boys to every 100 girls.

The birth rate in  Russia  is so low that by 2050 their population will be smaller than that of
Yemen.  Russia  has one-sixth of the earth's land surface and much of its oil. You can't control that much area with such a small population.  Immediately to the south, you have  China  with 70 million unmarried men who are a real potential nightmare scenario for Russia .
4. Restructuring of American Business
The fourth major transformation involves a fundamental restructuring of American business. Today's business environment is very complex and competitive. To succeed, you have to be the best, which means having the highest quality and lowest cost. Whatever your price point, you must have the best quality and lowest price. To be the best, you have to concentrate on one thing. You can't be all things to all people and be the best.

A generation ago, IBM used to make every part of their computer. Now Intel makes the chips, Microsoft makes the software, and someone else makes the modems, hard drives, monitors, etc. IBM even out sources their call center.

Because IBM has all these companies supplying goods and services cheaper and better than they could do it themselves, they can make a better computer at a lower cost. This is called a fracturing of business. When one company can make a better product by relying on others to perform functions the business used to do itself, it creates a complex pyramid of companies that serve and support each other.
  This fracturing of American business is now in its second generation. The companies who supply IBM are now doing the same thing - outsourcing many of their core services and production process. As a result, they can make cheaper, better products. Over time, this pyramid continues to get bigger and bigger. Just when you think it can't fracture again, it does.

Even very small businesses can have a large pyramid of corporate entities that perform many of its important functions. One aspect of this trend is that companies end up with fewer employees and more independent contractors.  This trend has also created two new words in business, integrator and complementor. At the top of the pyramid, IBM is the integrator. As you go down the pyramid, Microsoft, Intel and the other companies that support IBM are the complementors. However, each of the complementors is itself an integrator for the complementors underneath it.

This has several implications, the first of which is that we are now getting false readings on the economy. People who used to be employees are now independent contractors launching their own businesses. There are many people working whose work is not listed as a job. As a result, the economy is perking along better than the numbers are telling us.
  Outsourcing also confused the numbers. Suppose a company like General Motors decides to outsource all its employee cafeteria functions to Marriott (which it did). It lays off hundreds of cafeteria workers, who then get hired right back by Marriott. The only thing that has changed is that these people work for Marriott rather than GM. Yet, the media headlines will scream that America has lost more manufacturing jobs.

All that really happened is that these workers are now reclassified as service workers. So the old way of counting jobs contributes to false economic readings. As yet, we haven't figured out how to make the numbers catch up with the changing realities of the business world.
  Another implication of this massive restructuring is that because companies are getting rid of units and people that used to work for them, the entity is smaller. As the companies get smaller and more efficient, revenues are going down but profits are going up. As a result, the old notion that revenues are up and we're doing great isn't always the case anymore. Companies are getting smaller but are becoming more efficient and profitable in the process.
1. The War in  Iraq
In some ways, the war is going very well. Afghanistan  and  Iraq  have the beginnings of a modern government, which is a huge step forward. The Saudis are starting to talk about some good things, while  Egypt  and  Lebanon  are beginning to move in a good direction. A series of revolutions have taken place in countries like  Ukraine  and  Georgia .
  There will be more of these revolutions for an interesting reason. In every revolution, there comes a point where the dictator turns to the general and says, Fire into the crowd.  If the general fires into the crowd, it stops the revolution. If the general says No, the revolution continues. Increasingly, the generals are saying No because their kids are in the crowd.

Thanks to TV and the Internet, the average 18-year old outside the  U.S. is very savvy about what is going on in the world, especially in terms of popular culture. There is a huge global consciousness, and young people around the world want to be a part of it. It is increasingly apparent to them that the miserable government where they live is the only thing standing in their way. More and more, it is the well-educated kids, the children of the generals and the elite, who are leading the revolutions.

At the same time, not all is well with the war. The level of violence in Iraq  is much worse and doesn't appear to be improving. It's possible that we're asking too much of Islam all at one time. We're trying to jolt them from the 7th century to the 21st century all at once, which may be further
than they can go. They might make it and they might not. Nobody knows for sure. The point is, we don't know how the war will turn out. Anyone who says they know is just guessing.
The real place to watch is Iran . If they actually obtain nuclear weapons it will be a terrible situation. There are two ways to deal with it. The first is a military strike, which will be very difficult. The Iranians have dispersed their nuclear development facilities and put them underground. The  U.S.  has nuclear weapons that can go under the earth and take out those facilities, but we don't want to do that.

The other way is to separate the radical mullahs from the government, which is the most likely course of action.  Seventy percent of the Iranian population is under 30. They are Moslem but not Arab. They are mostly pro-Western. Many experts think the U.S. should have dealt with Iran before going to war with Iraq . The problem isn't so much the weapons; it's the people who control them. If  Iran  has a moderate government, the weapons become less of a concern.

We don't know if we will win the war in  Iraq . We could lose or win. What we're looking for is any indicator that Islam is moving into the 21st century and stabilizing,
2.  China

It may be that pushing 500 million people from farms and villages into cities is too much too soon. Although it gets almost no publicity, China is experiencing hundreds of demonstrations around the country, which is unprecedented. These are not students in Tiananmen Square . These are average citizens who are angry with the government for building chemical plants and polluting the water they drink and the air they breathe.

The Chinese are a smart and industrious people. They may be able to pull it off and become a very successful economic and military superpower. If so, we will have to learn to live with it. If they want to share the responsibility of keeping the world's oil lanes open, that's a good thing. They currently have eight new nuclear electric power generators under way and 45 on the books to build. Soon, they will leave the U.S.  way behind in their ability to generate nuclear power.
  What can go wrong with China ? For one, you can't move 550 million people into the cities without major problems. Two China really wants  Taiwan , not so much for economic reasons, they just want it. The Chinese know that their system of communism can't survive much longer in the 21st century. The last thing they want to do before they morph into some sort of more capitalistic government is to take over Taiwan .  We may wake up one morning and find they have launched an attack on Taiwan . If so, it will be a mess, both economically and militarily. The U.S has committed to the military defense of Taiwan . If China attacks Taiwan , will we really go to war against them? If the Chinese generals believe the answer is no, they may attack. If we don't defend Taiwan , every treaty the U.S. has will be worthless. Hopefully, China won't do anything stupid.
3. Demographics

Europe and  Japan  are dying because their populations are aging and shrinking. These trends can be reversed if the young people start breeding. However, the birth rates in these areas are so low it will take two generations to turn things around. No economic model exists that permits 50 years to turn things around. Some countries are beginning to offer incentives for people to have bigger families. For example, Italy is offering tax breaks for having children. However, it's a lifestyle issue versus a tiny amount of money. Europeans aren't willing to give up their comfortable lifestyles in order to have more children.

In general, everyone in  Europe just wants it to last a while longer Europeans have a real talent for living. They don't want to work very hard. The average European worker gets 400 more hours of vacation time per year than Americans. They don't want to work and they don't want to make any of the changes needed to revive their economies. The summer after 9/11, France lost 15,000 people in a heat wave. In August, the country basically shuts down when everyone goes on vacation. That year, a severe heat wave struck and 15,000 elderly people living in nursing homes and hospitals died. Their children didn't even leave the beaches to come back and take care of the bodies. Institutions had to scramble to find enough refrigeration units to hold the bodies until people came to claim them.  This loss of life was five times bigger than 9/11 in America , yet it didn't trigger any change in French society.

When birth rates are so low, it creates a tremendous tax burden on the young. Under those circumstances, keeping mom and dad alive is not an attractive option. That's why euthanasia is becoming so popular in most European countries. The only country that doesn't permit (and even encourage) euthanasia is Germany , because of all the baggage from World War II.

The European economy is beginning to fracture. Countries like Italy are starting to talk about pulling out of the European Union because it is killing them. When things get bad economically in  Europe , they tend to get very nasty politically. The canary in the mine is anti-Semitism.  When it goes up, it means trouble is coming. Current levels of anti-Semitism are higher than ever. Germany  won't launch another war, but  Europe  will likely get shabbier, more dangerous and less pleasant to live in. Japan  has a birth rate of 1.3 and has no intention of bringing in immigrants. By 2020, one out of every five Japanese will be 70 years old. Property values in  Japan  have dropped every year for the past 14 years. The country is simply shutting down. In the U.S.  we also have an aging population. Boomers are starting to retire at a massive rate. These retirements will have several major impacts:

Possible massive sell-off of large, four-bedroom houses and a movement to condos an enormous drain on the treasury. Boomers vote, and they want their benefits, even if it means putting a crushing tax burden on their kids to get them. Social Security will be a huge problem. As this generation ages, it will start to drain the system. We are the only country in the world where there are no age limits on medical procedures.

An enormous drain on the health care system, this will also increase the tax burden on the young, which will cause them to delay marriage and having families, which will drive down the birth rate even further. Although scary, these demographics also present enormous opportunities for products and services tailored to aging populations. There will be a tremendous demand for caring for older people, especially those who don't need nursing homes but need some level of care. Some people will have a business where they take care of three or four people in their homes.  The demand for that type of service and for products to physically care for aging people will be huge.
  Make sure the demographics of your business are attuned to where the action is. For example, you don't want to be a baby food company in Europe or Japan . Demographics are much underrated as an indicator of where the opportunities are. Businesses need customers. Go where the customers are. 

  4. Restructuring of American Business
The restructuring of American business means we are coming to the end of the age of the employer and employee. With all this fracturing of businesses into different and smaller units, employers can't guarantee jobs anymore because they don't know what their companies will look like next year. Everyone is on their way to becoming an independent contractor.

  The new workforce contract will be: Show up at the office five days a week and do what I want you to do, but you handle your own insurance, benefits, health care and everything else. Husbands and wives are becoming economic units. They take different jobs and work different shifts depending on where they are in their careers and families. They make tradeoffs to put together a compensation package to take care of the family.

This used to happen only with highly educated professionals with high incomes. Now it is happening at the level of the factory floor worker. Couples at all levels are designing their compensation packages based on their individual needs. The only way this can work is if everything is portable and flexible, which requires a huge shift in the American economy.

The U.S. is in the process of building the world's first 21st century model economy. The only other countries doing this are  U.K. and Australia . The model is fast, flexible, highly productive and unstable in that it is always fracturing and re-fracturing. This will increase the economic gap between the  U.S. and everybody else, especially Europe and Japan .

At the same time, the military gap is increasing. Other than China , we are the only country that is continuing to put money into their military. Plus, we are the only military getting on-the-ground military experience through our war in Iraq . We know which high-tech weapons are working and which ones aren't. There is almost no one who can take us on economically or militarily.

There has never been a superpower in this position before.  On the one hand, this makes the U.S. a magnet for bright and ambitious people. It also makes us a target. We are becoming one of the last holdouts of the traditional Judeo-Christian culture. There is no better place in the world to be in business and raise children
The  U.S.  is by far the best place to have an idea, form a business and put it into the marketplace. We take it for granted, but it isn't as available in other countries of the world.  Ultimately, it's an issue of culture. The only people who can hurt us are ourselves, by losing our culture. If we give up our Judeo-Christian culture, we become just like the Europeans. The culture war is the whole ball game. If we lose it, there isn't another America to pull us out.­­­­­­­­­­­

Monday, December 12, 2016



Here is why they are dead wrong! Lets starts at the very beginning and trace the reason why they claim this right of conscience! Their claim is that "Alexander Hamilton writing in the Federalist 68 gave them the right to vote based on their conscience

That is patently false.
 The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays arguing in support of the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the authors behind the pieces, and the three men wrote collectively under the name of Publius.
The Federalist Papers :
Seventy-seven of the essays were published as a series in The Independent Journal, The New York Packet, and The Daily Advertiser between October of 1787 and August 1788. They weren't originally known as the "Federalist Papers," but just "The Federalist." The final 8 were added in after.

Alexander Hamilton author of the Federalist Papers
Alexander Hamilton, 
At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret. It wasn't until Hamilton's death in 1804 that a list crediting him as one of the authors became public. It claimed fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton. Many of these would be disputed by Madison later on, who had actually written a few of the articles attributed to Hamilton.
Once the Federal Convention sent the Constitution to the Confederation Congress in 1787, the document became the target of criticism from its opponents. Hamilton, a firm believer in the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 1 that the series would "endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention."


Federalist 68 was written by these 3 men including Hamilton but under a secret name "Publius".

         In Federalist 68 they wrote this.
To the People of the State of New York: 

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. 

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty. 

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice. 

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office. 

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration. 

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter. 

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President. 



Points of fact about the timeline of when the Constitution was written signed ratified and signed by all the States of the Union:  

The Constitution of the United States of America is signed by 38 of 41 delegates present at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Supporters of the document waged a hard-won battle to win ratification by the necessary nine out of 13 U.S. states.
The Articles of Confederation, ratified several months before the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781, provided for a loose confederation of U.S. states, which were sovereign in most of their affairs. On paper, Congress–the central authority–had the power to govern foreign affairs, conduct war, and regulate currency, but in practice these powers were sharply limited because Congress was given no authority to enforce its requests to the states for money or troops. By 1786, it was apparent that the Union would soon break up if the Articles of Confederation were not amended or replaced. Five states met in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the issue, and all the states were invited to send delegates to a new constitutional convention to be held in Philadelphia.
On May 25, 1787, delegates representing every state except Rhode Island convened at Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania State House for the Constitutional Convention. The building, which is now known as Independence Hall, had earlier seen the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the signing of the Articles of Confederation. The assembly immediately discarded the idea of amending the Articles of Confederation and set about drawing up a new scheme of government. Revolutionary War hero George Washington, a delegate from Virginia, was elected convention president.
During an intensive debate, the delegates devised a brilliant federal organization characterized by an intricate system of checks and balances. The convention was divided over the issue of state representation in Congress, as more-populated states sought proportional legislation, and smaller states wanted equal representation. The problem was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower house (House of Representatives) and equal representation of the states in the upper house (Senate).
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states. Beginning on December 7, five states–Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut–ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.


Now lets go to  the 10th Amendment of the Constitution:

States Rights!

Defenders of states' rights were concerned that a powerful, consolidated national government would run roughshod over the states. With ratification of the Constitution in doubt, the Framers promised to add protection for the states. Accordingly, the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment stipulates that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  

This amendment became the constitutional foundation for those who wish to promote the rights and powers of the states vis-à-vis the federal government.So are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Many states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Both major parties decide on who the electors will be according to their rules and bye laws. The Candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that State gets to have their party's Electors vote for their Candidate in the Electoral College vote which occurs a few weeks after the Elections. 
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution.

Who selects the Electors?

Choosing each state's Electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each state choose slates of potential Electors sometime before the general election. Second, on Election Day, the voters in each state select their state's Electors by casting their ballots for President.
The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each state and varies from state to state. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential Electors at their state party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party's central committee. This happens in each state for each party by whatever rules the state party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential Electors.
Political parties often choose Electors for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be state elected officials, state party leaders, or people in the state who have a personal or political affiliation with their party's Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential Electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each state.)
The second part of the process happens on Election Day. When the voters in each state cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their state's Electors. The potential Electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures and ballot formats in each state.
The winning Presidential candidate's slate of potential Electors are appointed as the state's Electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the Electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the state winner receives two Electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one Elector. This system permits the Electors from Nebraska and Maine to be awarded to more than one candidate.

SO If an Elector decides to use the Hamilton argument and try to become a "Faithless Elector" he can be removed from being an elector by the Governor of the State in most cases and replaced by a loyal elector. This hogwash argument that they have the right to "Vote their conscience" based on the writings of Federalist 68 is bogus, because Hamilton did not even expose the fact that he was the man behind Publius till after his death! So if anything it was a con to convince the People of New York and no one else. Only the people of New York got to see Federalist 68 before the Constitution was ratified and it was not included in the Constitution or any of the following Amendments.

There is another rather pointed argument that should be made. Cherry picking your favorite Federalist essay and ignoring all teh rest is rather hypocritical.

Why not also apply Federalist 54  right? It asks that Slaves be counted as 3/5th Human. Same Hamilton writing as Publius to the People of New York State.

The Federalist Papers : No. 54 (again to the People of New York)

To the People of the State of New York:
THE next view which I shall take of the House of Representatives relates to the appointment of its members to the several States which is to be determined by the same rule with that of direct taxes.
It is not contended that the number of people in each State ought not to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to represent the people of each State. The establishment of the same rule for the appointment of taxes, will probably be as little contested; though the rule itself in this case, is by no means founded on the same principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and universal connection. In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention.
All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. "We subscribe to the doctrine,'' might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property.
In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.
The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants. "This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light, when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain? "It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the federal estimate of representation?
In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been appealed to as the proper guide. "This objection is repelled by a single abservation. It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not, perhaps, the same in any two States. In some of the States the difference is very material.
In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives. In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle, is waived by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN. !!!! "After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property. But is it a just idea? Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government.
Upon this principle it is, that in several of the States, and particularly in the State of New York, one branch of the government is intended more especially to be the guardian of property, and is accordingly elected by that part of the society which is most interested in this object of government. In the federal Constitution, this policy does not prevail. The rights of property are committed into the same hands with the personal rights. Some attention ought, therefore, to be paid to property in the choice of those hands. "For another reason, the votes allowed in the federal legislature to the people of each State, ought to bear some proportion to the comparative wealth of the States. States have not, like individuals, an influence over each other, arising from superior advantages of fortune. If the law allows an opulent citizen but a single vote in the choice of his representative, the respect and consequence which he derives from his fortunate situation very frequently guide the votes of others to the objects of his choice; and through this imperceptible channel the rights of property are conveyed into the public representation. A State possesses no such influence over other States. It is not probable that the richest State in the Confederacy will ever influence the choice of a single representative in any other State. Nor will the representatives of the larger and richer States possess any other advantage in the federal legislature, over the representatives of other States, than what may result from their superior number alone. As far, therefore, as their superior wealth and weight may justly entitle them to any advantage, it ought to be secured to them by a superior share of representation.
The new Constitution is, in this respect, materially different from the existing Confederation, as well as from that of the United Netherlands, and other similar confederacies. In each of the latter, the efficacy of the federal resolutions depends on the subsequent and voluntary resolutions of the states composing the union. Hence the states, though possessing an equal vote in the public councils, have an unequal influence, corresponding with the unequal importance of these subsequent and voluntary resolutions. Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States. They will depend merely on the majority of votes in the federal legislature, and consequently each vote, whether proceeding from a larger or smaller State, or a State more or less wealthy or powerful, will have an equal weight and efficacy: in the same manner as the votes individually given in a State legislature, by the representatives of unequal counties or other districts, have each a precise equality of value and effect; or if there be any difference in the case, it proceeds from the difference in the personal character of the individual representative, rather than from any regard to the extent of the district from which he comes. ''Such is the reasoning which an advocate for the Southern interests might employ on this subject; and although it may appear to be a little strained in some points, yet, on the whole, I must confess that it fully reconciles me to the scale of representation which the convention have established. In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not on the co-operation, of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.

So In Conclusion:
The Faithless Elector sham is bogus because they use the argument that 'Hamiltion" gave them the right to vote their conscience.

No, actually Publius wrote to the People of New York State.. and not to all the other States that you might be an Elector from.

Also It was never put into the Constitution so it is not a Federal option.

Electors as shown above are selected by Parties in the State and governed by State Rights. If the State requires their fealty to the winning Candidate although the Supreme Court has not ruled, a State Court must rule immediately and remove this elector. OK SO some electors have done it before and the argument is that they can do it again. NOT IF THEIR STATE REQUIRES THEM TO VOTE ACCORDING TO THEIR AFFIDAVIT/CONTRACT.

If you sign an agreement and you break the agreement I believe the "aggrieved" Candidate has the right to sue the ELECTOR. 


Truth be told I think that too many people have been watching those clowns on Broadway prance around in that play "Hamilton" and have not understood the real facts of the matter!