CSS-Offical-New-Logo2

nyt-3-c

The New York Times Interviews Dave Hodges

I was contacted for an interview by New York Times reporter, Jonathan Mahler.  At the onset, please allow me to state that Mr. Mahler was reasonable, asked well-thought out questions and fully allowed me the opportunity to respond. His follow up questions demonstrated that he had a good understanding of the issues that concern people who generally support Donald Trump.
The interview was premised on the notion of wanting know what kind of counter-reaction protest movements would emerge should Clinton prevail in the election.   Quite obviously, this is a loaded question and my answer could be made to look like I meant something that I did not say, nor mean. Therefore, I am generating this report to safeguard my reputation and integrity.  This is a pre-emptive journalistic kill-switch so to speak.
The Summary of My Answers
In reference to the question, I made the following points:

The Issues Surrounding Hillary

  1. Clinton is an illegitimate candidate  stemming from the classified emails to Benghazi. She belongs in jail, not running for President.
  2. There is already rampant election fraud taking place in America (e.g. 7 million democrats registered to vote in two different states, undocumented aliens being rushed to citizenship so they can vote, etc.). The people and Donald Trump have a right to challenge the election results. However, Trump expressed his potential need to challenge the vote counting etc., very poorly. Once the fraud has been PROPERLY investigated, the candidates have an obligation to respect the results, so long as the results were fairly arrived at.
  3. How can the military follow Clinton into battle against the Russians, when she sold uranium to the Russians? I view this as treason. This event was carried in a story carried by the New York Times in 2015.
  4. The Clinton Foundation was given $2 billion dollars to help the people of Haiti. According to Gary Heavin, who has already spent $12 million dollars of his own money to help the Haitian people, the Clinton Foundation is nowhere to be found. As a result, the Haitian people despise the Clintons.
  5. I consistently assert that Hillary will dramatically raise taxes by $1.3 trillion and this will be the death blow to an already fragile middle class.
  6. Hillary said she opposed free trade agreements during the debate. She is lying. As we know, she has her public and her private position. She has told Wall Street that and moderator of the 3rd debate, Chris Wallace, called her out on this point as well. Hillary is a ticking time bomb for those in the middle class whether they be Black, White, Latino, male or female, et al.
  7. Hillary will erase our national borders with an amnesty program and that will be the end of the sovereignty of the United States.

To the question of whether, or not, I have any knowledge of any planned protests or counter-reactions to a Clinton reaction, here is my response:
  1. I categorically state that if it was implied that there would be violence, I do not know of any planned events. I also would oppose such a violent response. I would support a boycott against the major banks and the big corporations who support the free trade agreements. Shop locally is what I advise. As I have often stated, I am calling for a boycott for any institution that benefits from a free trade agreement. Do not shop or bank with the corporations. Invest your money into the local economy. Turn off CNN/Fox/ABC, it is paid for propaganda representing the financial interests behind Hillary Clinton.
  2. I believe that if the people are going to engage in civil disobedience, or even start a revolution, I am totally unaware of any such plans by any individual or group. I mentioned that I am fundamentally opposed to violence, due to the fact that I am a Christian. However, I say for the record that Clinton better not come after the guns because that could set off an unfortunate and unpredictable set of events.
  3. I am still awaiting justice for Hillary Clinton.

Conclusion

I want to make it abundantly clear, the interview was premised on the fact that a strong and possibly aberrant reaction to the election of Hillary is expected and the reporter was fishing for information along these lines. To try and understand the motivation for such an inquiry.
Now, the interview will not appear in print until next week, sometime. However, I had a very bad experience with the Voice of Russia. I do not anticipate that happening in this case, but one cannot be too careful. Therefore, if things get said that are outside my expressed belief system, I want it on early record where I stand with regard to these issues. The reporter may have good intentions, but that does not mean that his editor does.
It is on the record. A written copy of my responses are on record and were also emailed to the reporter following the interview.