GH Eliason -- Inside The Secret Super Majority that Decide Election 2016 & War with Russia

Inside The Secret Super Majority that Decide Election 2016 & War with Russia

1333 ViewsJune 15, 2016 1 Comment

by GH Eliason

How well the candidate from either party satisfies 7 questions from a particular group of people will determine who the President of the United States will be after this election. The winner will be the one that proves they are the most willing to go to war with Russia and China after they are elected. Will you do your part and vote for them?

The only thing we need to agree on at this point is 1+1=2. It can’t vary. The simple logic doesn’t care how it makes you feel. If the information adds up without any leaps the conclusion presents itself in the simplest form, 1+1 always =2.

The determining factors in the US Presidential election won’t be decided in Kiev if that’s the direction you think I’m going in. Rather, along with the super-delegates, there is a secret super- majority that has existed for the last 40+ years in the USA and this is the most important election they will ever hijack and decide.

The problem with facts is once you know them, you can’t argue with them anymore.

This group has a 50-year history of deciding elections. Included in that history are the deaths of over 100,000 Americans and millions of people in other countries. For them, this is the most important election of all time. This time, they want to bring the war home.

With over 235 million eligible voters in the US, if you could count on more than 20 million of them to vote en bloc could you win? What if they were concentrated around swing cities in swing states across America? These are the cities with the highest number of electoral delegates. If any candidate could count on more than 15% of ballots cast before counting traditional party voters, could they lose?

In the 2012 election only 54% or 129 million voted out of 235 million eligible voters.

More than 20 million votes get’s more mileage with low voter turnout. When you take party affiliation into account it gets even more impressive. According to 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans.

This makes it clear that 15% of the electorate beyond your party is not only enough to win a presidential election but supplies a mandate. But whose mandate in 2016?

An easier way to understand this is if your candidate is predicted to win/lose by +-3-5% points in a given state and I can deliver 7%, am I really important to you? Or if I can deliver 5-7 states this way, do you owe me anything?

What if “WE” can deliver 15-18 important states this way in your national election? How about 20 states? Would you go to war for me? Would you sanction my enemies or at the extreme give me diplomatic cover if I commit or support genocide in other countries?

The Primaries- Where 5-15% Can Turn into 80% of the Vote!

The presidential primaries are where it really gets impressive. Why? No one votes. This is why candidates start with radical positions that after the convention “start to drift toward the center.” After all, they need to talk to the rest of us.

When you take the above and apply it to the primaries the math goes on steroids. Only .8% to 5% of eligible voters are needed to win a state. It can translate into 40-80% of the votes cast. Don’t believe me?

Let’s take a look at Iowa. In Iowa, there were 2,403,229 eligible voters for the 2016 primaries. Only 15% of registered voters showed up at the polls. That translates to 357,283 voters. Or just enough to make up a small city.

That figure covers both Democrats and Republicans. For either party that was just a little over 7% of registered voters. Democrats fielded 171109 votes for their candidates. Hilary Clinton won with a margin of .29 percent. With even a small bloc vote the Iowa primary could be turned either way.

The Emigre Super Blocs

The CEEC (Central and East European Coalition) represents a combined group with 22 million bloc voters. As the CEE immigrants came into the US, they were guided to the cities where they were needed to build out the power blocs for their representative groups. Most groups were a government in exile and today are the hand behind their home country’s government. They lobby for the home country’s interests to the US government. They also bring in money from the home countries to influence or outright buy American politicians.

More importantly, as governments in exile, they determined the type of government that would rule their home country. They turned over the reins of power to the new ex-Soviet bloc countries like Ukraine in 1991. They “advise” the home country, especially on Russia policy.

Their PAC’s come together to work on problems like immigration quotas or visas, relations with the US, and business. When it suits their interests they come together and determine election outcomes and foreign policy.

These groups have changed the outcomes of presidential elections both separately and working together for the past 50 years.

What the Emigres Want In 2016

Right now the CEEC emigres are working together for the last goal all of them have which is war with Russia and China. Their caucuses are traditionally so strong in Congress, it’s impossible to get elected without CEEC support in major states. And Congress has been pushing their agenda toward war with Russia since the days of Joseph McCarthy. Their influence on eastern European and Russia policy is unchecked. The time has come.

The 7 Questions that will determine 15% of the vote and the outcome of the 2016 US elections

The following 7 questions are what the combined Eastern and Central European emigres are demanding for votes and electoral votes in 2016. Following that, the proofs of how much weight their gerrymandering has gained in American politics since the early 1950s is supplied. Each emigre population listed had fathers and grandfathers that were Waffen SS or supported them in some fashion. Their families emigrated to the United States only understanding Nationalist/Nazi political views. Their politics never changed. They raise their children to be more committed than they were.

They even advertise their pride in their own Waffen SS soldiers that when combined took part in the murder of more than 2 million people. When each of their respective countries was freed, these same governments in exile and ethnic groups delivered the same ultra-nationalist government models their grandparents had in WWII as Axis countries or pre-WWII as Prometheans Group members. And no one ever had to answer for this.

From the CEEC-“ As President, what would your strategy be to deal with Russian aggression in Ukraine and threats in Central and Eastern Europe?  What options would you employ to achieve Russia?s withdrawal from lands it unlawfully controls, such as Crimea, eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria?

1.       What is your position on the current sanctions against Russia?

2.      How do you view NATO?s role in countering Russian aggression? What is your position on maintaining U.S. /NATO equipment and troops permanently in the CEE region? Please provide specifics.

3.      Do you favor NATO enlargement to include countries such as Georgia and Ukraine?

4.      What is your position on the Visa Waiver Program?s possible expansion to include other CEE countries, such as Poland?

5.      What is your position on U.S. assistance to ensure energy security in the CEE region?

6.      What is your position on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)?”

Ultimately this is about one thing, starting war with Russia and China. For the last 50 years, the one demand all the emigre populations have is the destruction of Russia.

According to the Independent “Nato risks a nuclear war with Russia within a year if it does not increase its defence capabilities in the Baltic states, one of the alliance’s most senior retired generals has said.”

Disputin’ Putin

Russia has no interest in attacking any of these countries. This Harvard University article puts the nails in that coffin. Russia really isn’t interested and you don’t have to take my word for it. If no one in these countries is worried about a Russian invasion, why go to war with Russia or risk nuclear war just because a few whiny nationalists want it? According to the corresponding monograph from the US Army War College, “It was the unanimous view [of academics] that overt military action by Russia against the Baltic States…is unlikely in the extreme.” Sorry Gen. Breedlove, check and mate. Your own military researchers think your credibility is a little light these days.

If Russia isn’t a real threat why do all these countries hate Russia so much?

First and foremost is understanding where the CEE countries are coming from politically. Each country is a new country that came out of the Habsburg “Spring of Nations” and are Wilson Doctrine countries. All of these countries were bordering or close to bordering Imperial Russia, later the Soviet Union, and today the Russian Federation.

Nationalism and Fascism were set up as a prophylactic against Russian or Soviet influence inside each country and the corresponding Diasporas. If you ask why they hate Russia, you are more than likely going to get an unintelligible rant instead of a reason. They simply don’t know and don’t care to look at the history.

Polonia & The Polish American Congress

“Polish-Americans in the United States comprise a voting bloc sought after by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Polish Americans comprise 3.2% of the United States population but were estimated at nearly 10% of the overall electorate as of 2012. The Polish-American population is concentrated in several swing states that make issues important to Polish-Americans more likely to be heard by presidential candidates. According to John Kromkowski, a Catholic University professor of political science, Polish-Americans make up an “almost archetypical swing vote.”

If you look at Presidential election results from 1916 to 2012 the Polish community was only distracted twice. Their choice of candidate won every other election. They are an archetypical swing vote. They have been described since the 1950’s as the one emigre group that could determine a national race on their own. Every candidate has paid real attention to this trying to gain their bloc vote. As early as 1960 this included JFK.

The Polish-American community is a tightly knit nationalist enclave and the only way for Kennedy to beat Nixon was to get the Polish vote and win it in the electoral count.

But what about today? The Irish named Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, is connecting with his Polish roots through the Polish-American Congress in an effort to be ready for a future presidential run. Senator Murphy has started the long neglected “Polish Caucus” to better gain support and contributions later on.

What do the Poles want? War with Russia. This is especially clear because Poland is pushing to make sure it happens. Bill Clinton won the Polish-American vote for helping Poland enter NATO in 1996. He recently gave his assessment of Polish nationalist politics.

Is Bill Clinton correct saying that the Hungarians, the Poles and by extension the Polish-American community that gave them their nationalism are looking for their own authoritarian leader and reject democracy? Yes, he is.

What was the Polish American Congress reaction to Bill Clinton‘s statement? “The Polish American Congress threatens to undermine Clinton campaign.It’s therefore, no surprise the Polish American Congress has protested, announcing it may throw its weight in the election behind anybody not named Clinton.” “Polish Americans are thick on the ground in several states Hillary Clinton will need to win in November if she plans to be our next president—including Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New York and New Jersey.”

Does this sound like a super bloc vote to you? The last time a candidate insulted the Polish-Americans, it was the gaff prone Gerald Ford. Ford, until that moment, had their vote and the election against Jimmy Carter was almost wrapped up. Despite the fact that the president of the Polish-American Congress was friends with Ford, the damage was done too close to the election. The Polish-American bloc went with Carter.

Is this good for Donald Trump? Not quite. Polonia is divided on this issue because Clinton represents the best candidate for longer range goals. November is a long way off. Full Polish support and war is only a half-hearted apology away.

Just ask Anne Applebaum, wife of former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski a staunch Polish Nationalist about how hypocritical we are to call a democracy, nationalism. “People close to the couple say she inspires his foreign policy plans and strategies” and “Europe’s history, he warned before anyone else, would be decided in Ukraine.”

“In the United States, we dislike the word “nationalism” and so, hypocritically, we call it other things: “American exceptionalism,” for example, or a “belief in American greatness.” We also argue about it as if it were something rational—Mitt Romney wrote a book that put forth the “case for American greatness”—rather than acknowledging that nationalism is fundamentally emotional. In truth, you can’t really make “the case” for nationalism; you can only inculcate it, teach it to children, cultivate it at public events.” – Anne Applebaum

How the 2016 Super Bloc Vote Creates David vs the Russian Goliath

Voting blocs, smoting blocs, who gives a damn? I got bloc’d in traffic the other day! This is America and everybody has a “voting bloc!” What ya’ didn’t know they’re on sale at Walmart? Two for a dolla’.

Yah, I get it. Voting blocs are part of the American experience. What you may not get is that we are discussing two entirely different things.

When we look at American bloc voting it has been issue oriented about American civil rights, immigration, and American life. These are American issues brought front and center by American people, to be decided by and for American people.

Looking at the largest American bloc voter segments today we find “In the 2012 elections, African-Americans accounted for about 13% of total votes, while Hispanics accounted for about 10% of the electorate.”Add in the Asian-American bloc vote “…, that figure is nearing 6 percent and spiraling upward.

These represent what is purported to be the largest voting blocs in America today and yet, “Arab Americans make up about one percent of the US population, but many live in the swing states that could decide the White House race.” What’s really weird about this election is that Arab Americans are predominately Christian and traditionally voted Republican- oopsie Mr. Trump.

What’s different about the voting blocs I am describing is they could care less about American democracy or civil rights. They were the constituency of governments in exile that served Nazi Germany in WWII. They are still ultra-nationalist politically and serve the foreign governments they set up when the Soviet Union collapsed.

If they were “democratic” would it be reasonable to assume the countries they set up or helped set up and support would be democratic too? Their impulse to support nationalist countries is so overwhelming for them they could give a damn when Americans lose their lives in wars they start for their foreign governments…so be it.

Four short examples of this are the Polish presidential election of 2015, Ukrainian-American perceptions about themselves, the actual reason we fought the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the elections of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. People self-describe themselves clearly in their actions.

Remember 1+1 always=2. In 2015 Andrzej Duda was elected president of Poland. That sounds democratic. But president Duda is profoundly ultra-nationalist. This sounds like a problem for Poland, right? Well, no, Polish-Americans voted in that election and showed their true democratic colors.

More than 80% of Polish-Americans voting, supported the Nazi, now president, Duda. The Telegraph called it the “Velvet Road to Dictatorship.”What would be a good start for a Nationalist/Nazi president of Poland?

How about Holocaust denial? Shown earlier, Polish-Americans make up 10% of America’s electorate on their own. In America, Polish-Americans that voted for Duda traditionally prefer to vote for the Democratic ticket.

In February 2015 I wrote an article about the illegality of Ukrainian-Americans supplying weapons to volunteer groups in Ukraine that were systematically killing civilians. Even though they openly stated at the time that funding was going for weapons, knew they were openly breaking Federal Law, the practice continues.

The Ukrainian Diaspora even acknowledged that this is illegal in their own publication linked below. “Supplies are all nonlethal equipment, as sending weapons would be illegal.”

This has been going on for the entire war in Ukraine, from Maidan onward. Open calls for weapons donation funding became common in American social media.

How do they self-identify? Did Adolf Hitler call himself a Nazi? Would Adolf Hitler be happy if you called him a Nazi to his face? Or was it how his enemy identified him? Are these Ukrainian-Americans Republican, Democrats, or Independents? Or Nazi? Do they believe in Democracy for Ukraine? For America?

In the U.S., he had made a connection with Ivanka Zajac, 62, a nurse who is the president of the New York branch of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, an organization that represents all Ukrainians in the U.S. and one that is lobbying Congress to pass a law authorizing the supply of weapons to Ukraine from the U.S…Zajac is in some ways the archetype of an Ukrainian nationalist…”

In some ways? If you go to the official UCCA website, every group listed in member organizations were classified as Nazi organizations by the US government in QRPLUMB VOL1_0004. Let’s not forget the listings that openly celebrate the Ukrainian Nazi Waffen SS, Ukrainian Veterans of the 1st Division or the Brotherhood of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

Because of her position she is naturally at the top of the food chain in the CEE organizing over 20 million election votes. But wait, how does America’s home grown voter blocs compare with them? Its a natural question. They don’t.

A natural outgrowth of the CEEC has been the Asian-American and Central American emigre blocs. From the 1950’s through the 80’s these countries rose and fell in election cycle importance through the Ukrainian nationalist World Anti-Communist League (WACL). For the American-Asian this culminated in 1972 when Richard Nixon was running for reelection.

Nixon was elected in 1968 with the 4th largest margin in election history. In 1972 his greatest fear was Chiang Kai-shek, the president of Taiwan destroying his presidency and electability through the Asian-American emigres relationship to the CEE emigres. How could this happen? It was the CEE bloc vote to begin with that got him elected by that margin. The Asian-Americans by themselves were less than 1% of the vote.

The real cause for both the Korean and Vietnam Wars was the factor the CEE groups played in elections. The president’s of the United States of America during this period were afraid of what thesegroups could muster on American soil with good reason. Today the same kind of nationalist views have become mainstream again so just look around you. To paraphrase one president and the actions of the others “I am afraid of a Nationalist/Nazi takeover of the US government that would make “McCarthyism look like chicken-shit.”

Seriously? Could it be true Stepan Bandera and Chiang Kai-shek were Nazi comrades? The proof is in the pictures. The next generations, unfortunately, stayed by the same political tree.

When you combine the Black-Hispanic-Asian American voting blocs and subtract the pro-Contra (nationalist) factions and the pro-Taiwan (Chiang Kai-shek, South Korean, South Vietnamese) nationalists that are fringe outliers to the CEEC, the CEEC vote is closer to 20% of the total US vote, while the natural American blocs dwindle in voting power considerably.

This begs the question- Can a group without even enough of a population to count as a bloc be a bloc to reckon with today?

The answer came in 1980. They can if they become a cause celeb! The election of Ronald Reagan was due to pro-Contra CEE group funding. The entire Iran-Contra mess was initially put together by the CEE groups leader Yaroslav Stetsko, leader of the Ukrainian emigres. Stetsko’s WACL had 2 member states fund Ronald Reagan’s primary campaign and then they (CEE) funded and organized it with him all the way to victory.

It’s the same for the Baltic states today. They are politically important because of the cause celeb. They are made out to be David against Russia’s Goliath.

There was a recommendation for NATO to engage as an alliance in ongoing wars – specifically in Ukraine, Georgia, Libya, and Syria – under the hypothesis that failure to engage weakens the effectiveness of the alliance’s deterrence efforts. There was disagreement on whether NATO needs to publish Russia’s specific violations.

The CEEC believes it is time to establish permanent NATO bases in the Alliance’s eastern member states, since any objection has been removed by Russia’s war on Ukraine…In the face of Russia’s aggressive actions NATO …In 2014, the Russian Federation forcibly annexed Crimea …Russia’s war on Ukraine and continued escalation of armed conflict threatens both Ukraina’s independence and the welfare of tens of millions of Europeans. A strong, coordinated military force is essential to stop Russia as it continues to destabilize its neighbors and disrespect international rules. ..Russia’s intimidation of the Baltic countries must cease.

Support the establishment of permanent NATO bases in these front-line countries to assure their security. Bases currently used by NATO for training and supply purposes in Central Europe should be made permanent and re-focused to territorial defense;

The Kremlin’s propaganda campaign justifies its aggression by claiming that NATO has broken its promises to not pursue enlargement and is in the process of aggressively encircling Russia.  This therefore poses a serious threat that Russia is justified in defending in the interest of its citizens…the panelists agreed that the West needs to push back in the face of Russia’s disregard of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

How did all this pan out for them? SCORE!

The war game, titled Anaconda-16, will take place in Poland ahead of next month’s NATO summit in Warsaw, where officials are expected to approve permanent troops to be stationed in the country and throughout eastern Europe, to combat what they consistently refer to ‘Russian aggression.’

“When I first came to Lithuania 22 years ago to try and help convince the local authorities to bring unpunished Lithuanian Nazi war criminals to trial, I tried to convince them that such proceedings were the best history lesson to help their society honestly deal with Lithuania’s bloody Holocaust past. Unfortunately, those efforts were only very partially successful, and now that fight for historical truth must continue without the advantages provided by the prosecution of local killers.” -Dr. Efraim Zuroff

Where does modern Lithuanian ultra-nationalism come from? In their own words-“ …the birth of nationalism (and of ethnic consciousness) occurred simultaneously in America and in Lithuania. Further, he believes that such a development would not have been possible without Lithuanian-American contributions.”..“Jonas Šliūpas himself, one of the prime movers of nationalism in the United States.” The CEE(Central & Eastern Europeans) have all been the largest promoters of nationalism in government in the USA for the last 50 years.

Pound for pound the vote from the Baltic’s is symbolic, but their influence on Russia policy is huge. The emigre influence is so great in the Baltic States some have gone over and served as Presidents. Can you imagine being so dedicated to “freeing the old country” as an American, you decide to take over the presidency there? What started as anti-communist showed its true light when the “wall” came down. Russia was the new old enemy. American and other emigre populations were the true citizens of those countries.

In this light, Estonia still hasn’t ratified a border with Russia in all these years. What would be the reason why?

“According to Russian analysts, they need to wage one more little victorious war in order to keep the euphoria alive — or carry out some sort of foreign policy operation and make Russia’s situation in the international arena even more complex in order to show voters that they really are under siege,” said the center’s director. “An unratified border treaty with Estonia may play some kind of role in such a combination which we are yet unable to picture.”

Perhaps they should read Ukrainian- American scholarship a little more closely as both countries are aligned at the hip these days, nazis and all. Professor Moytl, a Ukrainian-American nationalist, thought at the time statements like this were ok.

“Although the possibility of war is not as far-fetched as one would like it to be, it would not work to Ukraine’s disadvantage. Indeed, the emergence of a genuinely hostile Russia would translate into Ukraine’s rapid integration into European economic and security structures and its concomitant transformation into a client state of the United States. As an East European version of South Korea, Ukraine would become the recipient of large-scale Western–in particular, American–military and economic assistance that would guarantee its stability,if not its prosperity…. Russia’s aggressiveness, therefore, could be Ukraine’s salvation . ” [See Alexander J. Motyl, “Will Ukraine Survive 1994?” in the Harriman Institute Forum, Vol. 7, No. 5 (January 1994), p. 4.]

The unratified border serves as a friction point to start a war Estonia cannot fight. Help us NATO!Which candidate do the Baltic states and emigres support for president?

“Because of her “hawkish” approach towards Russia, she would most likely step up the rhetoric against the country when in the Oval Office. This would work well for the Baltics, especially Lithuania,” the analyst underlines. “She is kind of a bellicose person. Hillary Clinton supported the war in Iraq and wanted US intervention in Libya.”

One plus one equals two.

Russia’s response to all this is amazing and not something you see much of in today’s world. It’s the kind of statement governments across the world should take note of when they claim the high ground.

The Russian Response

“After World War II we tried to impose on many Eastern European nations our model of development and we did it through force. We must acknowledge that. There’s nothing good in it, it still affects us today…The Americans are doing something like that now, trying to impose their model on virtually the entire world. They will fail too.”- Vladimir Putin, 2015 Q&A

What do the Baltic emigres want? Lithuania along with the other Baltic states are trying to light the flames of war between the US and Russia. At the same time, they celebrate their home grown Nazi heroes. Are they or have they ever been democratic?

I’ve started to wonder if the high degree of propaganda in the US is to keep you in line or keep them in line. As we all found out this primary season your vote didn’t have enough dollars attached to it to make a difference. The only way to combat this right now is to get people to vote. The more people that do, the less effective they are. Election reform, anyone?

The next part is where this article series will liven up. Do you still doubt the power of the CEEC super bloc? If you do go to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial “the Wall” and count the names. Does one plus one equal two?

http://thesaker.is/inside-the-secret-super-majority-that-decide-election-2016-war-with-russia/