Profile photo of

The problem here is that Judge Jeanine is entirely right about Mitt Romney. Bravo. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney was chosen to be the spokesman to again divert public attention away from the REAL issue – the way the entire process has been manipulated into a conclusion that was arrived at long before any candidate declared his or her candidacy. MB’s assessment of the secret societies is far more on target than most have any idea. And the “insiders” don’t care about party lines, because those apparent differences are irrelevant. Political parties manipulate people into thinking we still have choices each primary season, and particularly each November. Those days are gone.

The decision-makers were brilliant enough to select Romney to be the one to deliver a great-sounding speech, on the surface. Because I had already drawn my own conclusions about Trump, as I listened to Romney’s speech (in its entirety, not what the networks would later say about it) I found myself agreeing with the majority of what he said in the speech. But the devil, as usual, was in the details, however. Few really “heard” what Romney really said. When translated and amplified, he really said, “DON’T vote for who you think is the best candidate. Look at the polls that we construct for you, and determine who appears to have the best chance of beating Donald Trump in your state, and vote for THAT person. Then hope that others can do the same with some other candidate in their states, and so on, until Trump is denied a majority at the Convention. Then WE (the Party insiders) get to do what we did in 2012 and change whatever rules we choose to change at the Convention, so WE can select OUR choice for your November candidate.

Brilliant strategy. And Judge Jeanine nailed him on it. I sat there and listened to Romney’s speech in its entirety, live, and found myself feeling much like I did when I watched the movie “Bonnie and Clyde” way back in the 60s, when the audience was manipulated into cheering for two sleazy murderers, and feeling bad when they were gunned down. That film, like this anti-Trump strategy with Romney as spokesman, was also brilliant. The film was able to manipulate the feelings of its viewers to feel things that were still fundamentally wrong. Audiences WANTED Bonnie and Clyde to get away, and felt BAD when they died. Forget all those that had died along the way, or the lives of those left behind that were ruined. Similarly Romney would have us feel good about manipulating a system that isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution, so as to pervert the selection of the President of the United States through the use of the perverted mechanism the parties have set up in order that the “insiders” can continue selecting “our” President. People who were already uncomfortable with Donald Trump prior to Romney’s speech were hauled in by most of what Romney said, while missing what else he ALSO endorsed in that speech. Like “Bonnie and Clyde” audiences, the important details are being entirely missed. In this case, it’s the entire party system, the methods by which each party selects its candidates and presents them to us as “our” choices. And we actually thought the “vote” in the USSR was wrong while our system was as perfect as it gets? That’s only because people are no longer educated on what the Constitution does – and does NOT – say about how presidents are elected. The selection of senators had to be formally changed with the 17th Amendment in 1913 in order to seriously weaken states’ rights. But because the Constitution is silent on how presidential candidates are selected prior to November, the “insiders” were able to craft a system that sufficiently hoodwinks an entire population into thinking they’re voting for popularly selected candidates, and that we have “democracy” and freely elected leaders.

And the problem now remains that no one left in the running fundamentally believes in governing the nation as the Constitution intends. Roadracer’s list of desirable qualities in another thread was spot-on – as long as EACH element of those seven is equally important, and violation of any one of them is grounds for discarding a candidate. Sadly, not one of the current candidates meets those criteria.

So bravo, Jeanine Pirro. I wonder if she will also now lose her show, just as Andrew Napolitano lost his on Fox Business Network when he went too far, for too long. He called out the “insiders” much too loudly and specifically, and now Judge Jeanine has also.