Do you believe that elections in America are not rigged? before you answer, you may like to remind yourself of the Bush-Gore election of 2000 — not that it was the only example of fraud or manipulation in recent memory, only the most spectacular. in fact, it seems there are suspicious goings-on in almost every election, on both sides (including the Bush-Gore contest); but they are usually very briefly mentioned and then swept under the rug.
Even so, i was surprised that the vote-counting in the Iowa Republican caucuses last night was so fishy. surprised that the puppet-masters would feel it necessary to manipulate even this very first vote for the Republican nominee for President!
Oh, maybe i'm just crazy ... paranoid ... seeing conspiracies everywhere. in any case, i feel compelled to lay out some of my observations here — and you can agree or disagree with them. one of the underlying observations is that every American President for a long time has become either a puppet or a dead President. JFK refused to be a good enough puppet (he was actually taking steps to wrestle the money supply away from The Federal Reserve, for heaven's sake!!) — so he had to be terminated. Ronald Reagan wasn't a very good puppet, either — but the assassination attempt on him was botched (a "lunatic" with a handgun at close range, which had worked fine on Robert Kennedy, by the way). but then he got Alzheimer's. hmmm....
Yes, to many of us, it seems more than obvious that there is a concerted effort by the New-World-Order/One-World-Government folks to take over not just America but every country ... and these are the people i call the "puppet-masters." President Obama is the best puppet they've ever had. he's been doing his best to "fundamentally transform America" — yes, indeed! but, in case the puppet-masters are not able to get him "re-elected," they must make sure to "elect" the most puppet-like of his adversaries. who would that be?
Michele Bachmann? — no.
John Huntsman? — no.
Rick Perry? — no.
Ron Paul? — definitely not! (a guy who would actually run the government as instructed by the Constitution?!?!)
Newt Gingrich (the loosest cannon on deck)? — HA!
Rick Santorum? — no.
Mitt Romney? — ahhh, yessss.... the most malleable of the bunch. he could be almost as good a puppet as Obama.
Still, i'm surprised they felt it necessary to fiddle with the results from Iowa, the very first Republican votes! and maybe i'm wrong, maybe there was no fiddling ... but, what i saw and heard from the TV last night was certainly a little fishy to me:
With either 92% or 96% (sorry, i don't recall exactly when the number changed from 92 to 96) of the precincts reporting, it was announced that Santorum was leading by 18 votes. shortly after that, it was announced that the votes had been miscounted or misreported, and that Romney had 14 additional votes — cutting Santorum's lead to 4. this was with only 2 precincts not reported yet.
At that point, i was watching the Fox News channel ... where Karl Rove announced that he had "inside" information declaring Romney the winner by 14 votes! how strange: the very number of votes that had supposedly been miscounted just a short time before!! even stranger, Fox was now reporting that "the man with the official paper" was "missing" — MISSING?!?! — but that both campaign organizations (Romney's and Santorum's) had agreed that Romney would win by 14 votes!! REALLY??? is that how it works — in the absence of the official vote count, the candidates involved simply decide to agree on who will be declared the winner, and by how many votes??? and none of the commentators even raised an eyebrow at this. (i don't mean to imply that the candidates made up the numbers; no, they had supposedly been told the numbers by the man who was now "missing" ... and had agreed that his numbers must be right.)
Then i switched over to CNN ... where it was very soon reported that Romney was the winner by 8 votes, not 14. and that Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn would make the official announcement momentarily.
I went back to Fox, to watch Mr. Strawn's announcement. yes, he gave the total numbers of votes and said that Romney had won by 8. the strange thing, to me, was that he said, "...with 1773 precincts reporting...." — and all night long (for days, in fact) we had been told there were 1774 precincts. oh, well, maybe i misunderstood him. i've been searching the web today, looking for his quote, but haven't found it anywhere.
Well, okay, let's all just agree that Romney won by 8 votes, eh? but here's another thing that seemed strange to me: the results were announced sometime after 2:00 a.m. (Iowa time) ... but, when i went back to CNN, there was a woman who had officiated in one of the precinct caucuses, telling an interesting story. she said she had reported the precinct's vote count (to whomever she was supposed to report to) at 7:40 p.m. and had gone home and gone to bed .... only to be woken at about 11:00 by someone higher-up in the Republican party (the Chairman, Mr. Strawn, i believe), who told her that he had not received her report. i don't know what to make of this, i merely report it as one more thing that seems fishy to me....
You might think it really wouldn't matter whether Romney won by 8 votes or lost by 8 votes. that's what i thought. what difference could 8 votes in Iowa make in the eventual selection of the Republican nominee? these votes only determine how many delegates each candidate will have at the Republican convention, next year — and last night the TV was announcing that, with only 8 votes separating them, Romney would have 7 delegates and Santorum would have 7 delegates. but here's another strange thing: today, foxnews.com shows 13 delegates for Romney and 12 for Santorum...!
Yes, the puppet-masters will do everything they can to make Romney the Republican candidate. Barack Obama knows this, of course; he has been designing his campaign against Romney all along. and the puppet-masters will do their best to keep Obama in the White House — but, just in case they can't arrange that, they figure Mitt Romney will be their next-best puppet....
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
UPDATE: January 19, 2012
----------------------------------------------
YES — as reported by the Washington Post, Rick Santorum has now been declared the winner in Iowa, by 34 votes! but maybe the real headline should be: Votes from 8 Precincts MISSING! because they are ... missing. somehow the votes from 8 precincts just disappeared.... and no one will continue looking for them. sorry, election's over, Santorum wins!
The whole process of totaling the votes is quite bizarre, in fact. voters write the name of their chosen candidate on a slip of paper; then these votes are counted and each candidate's total is written on another piece of paper (called a "Form E") ... and the paper with these totals — but not the ballots themselves! — is sent to the officials who will add the totals from all precincts (except the missing ones : ^ ) and declare a winner.
Apparently the number of votes on the actual ballots are often different than the numbers that end up written on the forms that go to the final officials, however. "The Des Moines Register, citing unidentified officials in the Iowa GOP, reported that in 131 precincts, the forms showed numbers different than those reported on caucus night." so, hey, the whole process is wide open to fraud. the folks at the local precinct can put any numbers they want on their "Form E" and no one checks those numbers against the actual ballots.
So, in this case, even the puppet-masters couldn't make things come out the way they wanted...! : ^ )
Even so, i was surprised that the vote-counting in the Iowa Republican caucuses last night was so fishy. surprised that the puppet-masters would feel it necessary to manipulate even this very first vote for the Republican nominee for President!
Oh, maybe i'm just crazy ... paranoid ... seeing conspiracies everywhere. in any case, i feel compelled to lay out some of my observations here — and you can agree or disagree with them. one of the underlying observations is that every American President for a long time has become either a puppet or a dead President. JFK refused to be a good enough puppet (he was actually taking steps to wrestle the money supply away from The Federal Reserve, for heaven's sake!!) — so he had to be terminated. Ronald Reagan wasn't a very good puppet, either — but the assassination attempt on him was botched (a "lunatic" with a handgun at close range, which had worked fine on Robert Kennedy, by the way). but then he got Alzheimer's. hmmm....
Yes, to many of us, it seems more than obvious that there is a concerted effort by the New-World-Order/One-World-Government folks to take over not just America but every country ... and these are the people i call the "puppet-masters." President Obama is the best puppet they've ever had. he's been doing his best to "fundamentally transform America" — yes, indeed! but, in case the puppet-masters are not able to get him "re-elected," they must make sure to "elect" the most puppet-like of his adversaries. who would that be?
Michele Bachmann? — no.
John Huntsman? — no.
Rick Perry? — no.
Ron Paul? — definitely not! (a guy who would actually run the government as instructed by the Constitution?!?!)
Newt Gingrich (the loosest cannon on deck)? — HA!
Rick Santorum? — no.
Mitt Romney? — ahhh, yessss.... the most malleable of the bunch. he could be almost as good a puppet as Obama.
Still, i'm surprised they felt it necessary to fiddle with the results from Iowa, the very first Republican votes! and maybe i'm wrong, maybe there was no fiddling ... but, what i saw and heard from the TV last night was certainly a little fishy to me:
With either 92% or 96% (sorry, i don't recall exactly when the number changed from 92 to 96) of the precincts reporting, it was announced that Santorum was leading by 18 votes. shortly after that, it was announced that the votes had been miscounted or misreported, and that Romney had 14 additional votes — cutting Santorum's lead to 4. this was with only 2 precincts not reported yet.
At that point, i was watching the Fox News channel ... where Karl Rove announced that he had "inside" information declaring Romney the winner by 14 votes! how strange: the very number of votes that had supposedly been miscounted just a short time before!! even stranger, Fox was now reporting that "the man with the official paper" was "missing" — MISSING?!?! — but that both campaign organizations (Romney's and Santorum's) had agreed that Romney would win by 14 votes!! REALLY??? is that how it works — in the absence of the official vote count, the candidates involved simply decide to agree on who will be declared the winner, and by how many votes??? and none of the commentators even raised an eyebrow at this. (i don't mean to imply that the candidates made up the numbers; no, they had supposedly been told the numbers by the man who was now "missing" ... and had agreed that his numbers must be right.)
Then i switched over to CNN ... where it was very soon reported that Romney was the winner by 8 votes, not 14. and that Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn would make the official announcement momentarily.
I went back to Fox, to watch Mr. Strawn's announcement. yes, he gave the total numbers of votes and said that Romney had won by 8. the strange thing, to me, was that he said, "...with 1773 precincts reporting...." — and all night long (for days, in fact) we had been told there were 1774 precincts. oh, well, maybe i misunderstood him. i've been searching the web today, looking for his quote, but haven't found it anywhere.
Well, okay, let's all just agree that Romney won by 8 votes, eh? but here's another thing that seemed strange to me: the results were announced sometime after 2:00 a.m. (Iowa time) ... but, when i went back to CNN, there was a woman who had officiated in one of the precinct caucuses, telling an interesting story. she said she had reported the precinct's vote count (to whomever she was supposed to report to) at 7:40 p.m. and had gone home and gone to bed .... only to be woken at about 11:00 by someone higher-up in the Republican party (the Chairman, Mr. Strawn, i believe), who told her that he had not received her report. i don't know what to make of this, i merely report it as one more thing that seems fishy to me....
You might think it really wouldn't matter whether Romney won by 8 votes or lost by 8 votes. that's what i thought. what difference could 8 votes in Iowa make in the eventual selection of the Republican nominee? these votes only determine how many delegates each candidate will have at the Republican convention, next year — and last night the TV was announcing that, with only 8 votes separating them, Romney would have 7 delegates and Santorum would have 7 delegates. but here's another strange thing: today, foxnews.com shows 13 delegates for Romney and 12 for Santorum...!
Yes, the puppet-masters will do everything they can to make Romney the Republican candidate. Barack Obama knows this, of course; he has been designing his campaign against Romney all along. and the puppet-masters will do their best to keep Obama in the White House — but, just in case they can't arrange that, they figure Mitt Romney will be their next-best puppet....
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
UPDATE: January 19, 2012
----------------------------------------------
Santorum Declared Winner in Iowa After All
YES — as reported by the Washington Post, Rick Santorum has now been declared the winner in Iowa, by 34 votes! but maybe the real headline should be: Votes from 8 Precincts MISSING! because they are ... missing. somehow the votes from 8 precincts just disappeared.... and no one will continue looking for them. sorry, election's over, Santorum wins!
The whole process of totaling the votes is quite bizarre, in fact. voters write the name of their chosen candidate on a slip of paper; then these votes are counted and each candidate's total is written on another piece of paper (called a "Form E") ... and the paper with these totals — but not the ballots themselves! — is sent to the officials who will add the totals from all precincts (except the missing ones : ^ ) and declare a winner.
Apparently the number of votes on the actual ballots are often different than the numbers that end up written on the forms that go to the final officials, however. "The Des Moines Register, citing unidentified officials in the Iowa GOP, reported that in 131 precincts, the forms showed numbers different than those reported on caucus night." so, hey, the whole process is wide open to fraud. the folks at the local precinct can put any numbers they want on their "Form E" and no one checks those numbers against the actual ballots.
So, in this case, even the puppet-masters couldn't make things come out the way they wanted...! : ^ )
