Tuesday, 2 February 2016



"Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus."

Meanwhile, the question is being asked:


On the front cover of The Economist's The World in 2016, we see Hilary Clinton, but no sign of Donald Trump or any other weird US presidential contender.

However, The Economist thinks that the Republicans might choose Marco Rubio as their candidate and that the Republicans might just win if the US economy goes badly wrong before the US presidential election.

According to Marco Rubio, God has a plan for the universe and this plan includes the 9 11 terror attacks and Paris terror attacks.

So, according to Rubio, the CIA and its friends work for God.

Marco Rubio (above) appears to be a mind-controlled agent of Israel and the CIA.

From age 8 to age 11, Marco Rubio attended The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) while living in Las Vegas, [5] where his father worked as a bartender at Sam's Town Hotel and his mother a housekeeper at the Imperial Palace Hotel and Casino.[6] 

Mohamed Atta frequented Las Vegas, a city linked to the CIA and its friends.

While studying law, Rubio (above) interned for U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen[12]

Ros-Lehtinen's maternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews, originally from theTurkish  Ottoman Empire, who had been active in Cuba's Jewish community.[8]



  1. Preacher mark-time on Ma-r-co and US Ch./mainstream/most? Tis? Standard Calvinism. That, which tends to popularly explain, ‘God in history and the woes’ - as... unexplainable? Equating big-prob/is/God/able - with why/doubts? - as... more theo-quandaries.

    Done this, comment-wise (hopefully w.-ish?). One I will spake: God is with those suffering here, not ‘up there’ somewhere. Can’t let that blatant run-down - missing from the gospel - pass. Is Marco sincere? Probably? He doesn’t sound so completely not. Maybe? What’s missing in his bad-things apologetic, is evil and unseen entities? Probably advised a vote-loser. But bit of a miss eh?

    With candidates for prez and rumbling confirmed-liars ever-which; It’s hard not to look, only-either-or and not so much, both/and. An understandable tenancy to outcry one and all rather than allow any measure of hope. Or, better than... Of course, one argument would want the one to cause most counter-positive reaction. Who do we prefer; liberal-lefties, or con-rights getting riled up post-election? Enough to “get-up off out of ya bed and come to the front...” ?

    Awakers (most-US) would need a Libertarian in to satisfy. Last/only?/ one of them, and a contender, was Ron. For those all anti-R and pro-some benevolent social-ism (more-UK)? Beats me who’d not disappoint/be betrayed by? Don the hated T has been closest to blowing whistles? If he doesn’t win the job... sorry, office... oh yeah? get up-to-date: Throne. What’ll T do? Retrospective will show where he’s been at this past while. For someone to reign back ‘special interests'? Would they really be allowed to win, much less operate freely? The dominance is moving-in fast. I hope... there ya go, a contender has it in them, and position to - Stand.

  2. Mysterious Cruz:

    Ted Cruz tries, fails to get a hug from his daughter on campaign trail

    Doesn't look like Mr. Cruz is well liked by his daughter. Some apprehension is expected from children, this seems altogether different.


  3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427914/New-214-000-year-head-UK-s-FBI-faced-fired-old-job-child-protection-failures-including-case-murdered-teenager-Breck-Bednar.html