From World War 3 To The Age of Peace (2006-2012)

[Eightball]

Then after all that make-believe Bullshit...., what does the news anchor do next folks?

All of a sudden, one of two things happen. First, there are either some "technical difficulties", or else the computer breaks down.

If you don't believe that, think back to the Florida debacle in 2000. After awhile the network head will report either a huge landslide of results with one candidate pulling way ahead, or else the "difficulty" was corrected and there was a drastic turnaround in votes, with the candidate in front falling far behind, or vise versa.

But speed is the key ingredient. While the polling place is closing down one minute after the hour and punch cards or computer data is being transferred to country headquarters, then onward to VNS, none of it can be verified or made official.

A perfect example would be the 2000 Iowa caucus. With over 2,000 polling places, the AP announced a winner one minute after the caucus had opened (not closed) and not one vote had been cast.

Think about how absurd these examples are people. ABC news is reporting election results a day before an election, and the AP is announcing winners before any votes are not only analyzed, but even cast!

Uh Huh zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[NuclearWinter]

Uh Huh zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

lol. Glad to see you were able to write this in your sleep Eightball.

That's what I'm talkin about. Sleep talkin.

 

[NuclearWinter]

The first ingredient needed to assure the "desired results" from a particular election is the use of polls and exit polls. Before I continue, I'd like to make one thing perfectly clear.

THE POLL RESULTS THAT YOU SEE ON THE NIGHTLY NEWS AND IN YOUR LOCAL PAPER ON A DAILY BASIS ARE NOTHING BUT A CONDITIONING TOOL USED TO MAKE THE GENERAL PUBLIC THINK THE PROPER WAY.

In other words, the supposed polls you see every night on the World News do nothing but mold opinion, not mirror it. The concept is similar to the psychological test in which 20 "plants" are told to say that a certain flashcard is colored red, when in reality it is purple. When the 21st person is finally asked what color the card is, they've been so conditioned to think its purple (because every one else said so), that they go against their own natural inclinations and answer incorrectly.

Actually, a more appropriate psychological term for this process is called "psychic driving". To acclimate the voting public on how they're supposed to react, a specific message is repeatedly hammered into their heads on a daily basis.

 

[NuclearWinter]

Are you starting to see how this little game is played? First we're set-up with "public-opinion" polls, which are nothing but an outright farce, and do not in any way indicate how we truly feel. All the numbers are cooked! But this con job plays a very important role by getting us "ready" for who the Controllers have decided will win in a particular election.

After the stage has been set by repeatedly saying that candidate X is ahead in the polls by 10 points (even though they may only have a 20% favorable rating by the voting public), we are now ready for stage two - the lightning fast projections and "exit poll" results.

Exit polls, I hope you know by now, are even shadier than the pre-election surveys. Why? Because it's one last chance to condition the public and prepare them for who the "winner" will be. (As a side note, exit polls also play a large part in lessening the impact that voters in western states play in determining who will ultimately emerge as the victor.)

 

[NuclearWinter]

As we have already discovered, none of the networks "scramble" to get election results. It's all part of the show folks. All of their information comes from the exact same source at the exact same time - VNS. They have already admitted this fact, although they do so as quietly as possible. Then, within one minute of the polls closing, the networks project a winner based on exit polls that are startling in their accuracy (with only 1% of the vote actually in).

The next logical question to ask at this point is - if the networks aren't running around frantically doing election-day exit polling, then who is? The answer - an outfit called VRS - Voter Research Surveys. Now, try and guess who operates VRS? ............................ If you guessed VNS, you are absolutely right! Because it's the same Big Six media conglomerates that run VNS who run VRS!

And there is even supposed to be an organization that is "supposably" overlooking VNS to make sure everything is done lawfully. It's called the NCCP - National Council of Public Polls. But here's the kicker folks. lol. Guess who owns the NCCP? You got it. It's the same damn media members who founded VNS! And they are the ones who run the NCCP, which is an organization that they created, to "Overlook" themselves. lol. What a crock of shit folks.

How trustworthy do you think that sounds? The VRS is owned by the VNS and they are the ones who are supposably researching all the facts. And the organization that is supposed to be overlooking these things to make sure everything is done properly, is owned by the very people it is overlooking.

Would you tell on yourself if you were doing illegal things with the public's election process? lol. I doubt it. So what makes you think that they would? It's a joke.

 

[NuclearWinter]

So all of this seems pritty darn convenient huh? And between the networks, VNS, VRS, and NCCP, we have polls, exit polls, then finally those remarkable projections that are almost always right on the mark. But how can their estimates always be so close to what the final "tabulated" results are? That's easy. All the election supervisors have to do is doctor the computer numbers to match the exit polls; then they come up with what was already a pre-determined result in the first place.

How do you think we keep getting all these asinine politicians in office folks (the same ones who stay there for years)? Do you think it was because we wanted it that way? lol. Especially when almost everybody dislikes them? We sure as hell aren't voting for them (at least if there's another choice).

The picture is becoming a little clearer every day.

 

[Annie]

So all of this seems pritty darn convenient huh? And between the networks, VNS, VRS, and NCCP, we have polls, exit polls, then finally those remarkable projections that are almost always right on the mark. But how can their estimates always be so close to what the final "tabulated" results are? That's easy. All the election supervisors have to do is doctor the computer numbers to match the exit polls; then they come up with what was already a pre-determined result in the first place.

How do you think we keep getting all these asinine politicians in office folks (the same ones who stay there for years)? Do you think it was because we wanted it that way? lol. Especially when almost everybody dislikes them? We sure as hell aren't voting for them (at least if there's another choice).

The picture is becoming a little clearer every day.

Not so clear to me, though how many pages have you used?

 

[NuclearWinter]

Not so clear to me, though how many pages have you used?

Or perhaps you just haven't been paying enough attention.

 

[Annie]

Or perhaps you just haven't been paying enough attention.

Could be, but unlikely.

 

[NuclearWinter]

In an election totally free of fraud, citizens would hand-write their votes on paper ballots, place them in a clear box; then watch as an impartial group of volunteers counted their votes in full view. The results would then be posted at the polling place before being shopped to the county courthouse.

With computerized voting, however, we simply send a "blip" through cyberspace. There is no paper trail (a physical ballot), nor are there any checks and balances. We're simply told to trust those in charge of the election and that everything will be ok. Considering the evidence I've provided thus far, how much faith does that inspire in you?

What if we found that it's possible to manipulate these computerized unseen results to "correspond" to the projections (also doctored) that were given one minute after the polls closed so that everything would be official? What if someone told you - "Hey, it'd be very easy to find a computer programmer who could write some software that would already determine the winner regardless of the vote totals"? The procedure wouldn't be much more difficult to pull off than placing a paper roller into the back of a Printomatic voting machine that already had the totals pre-printed on them.

 

[NuclearWinter]

Now I'm sure someone will say that this notion is preposterous! To prove that the process isn't corrupt, all the software designers have to do is show you the "source code" from their program. How complicated could it be to write a program that simply counts votes? Any tenth grade kid who has taken an introductory course in computer science could write it.

But guess what? Numerous researchers have tried to inspect the computer software at VNS. But instead of gladly allowing them to do so (these are fair and open elections, aren't they?) VNS flatly denied their requests, saying that their programs were "trade secrets". In other words, their software is afforded the same protection as any other corporate trade software.

To me, though, the same rationale doesn't apply for two reasons.

First, a privately owned for-profit company is much different from one that is very influential in determining who will assume the Presidency and a large number of Congressional seats.

My second argument is just as straightforward: What do these software designers have to hide?

They haven't created programs that prevent America from being bombed by incoming ballistic missiles like those used at NORAD. The only thing (supposedly) their software does is count votes. Why all the secrecy? Why don't they want anyone inspecting their source codes?

 

[NuclearWinter]

On the night before the 1988 Presidential election, the following conversation took place on the CBS Evening News:

Dan Rather: "Realistically, could the fix be put on in a national election?"

Howard J. Strauss (Computer expert - Princeton University): "Get me a job with a company that writes the software for this program. Then I'd have access to one-third of the votes. Is that enough to fix a general election?"

Mr Strauss also has said, "When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards. It's not a door without locks; it's a house without doors."

 

[NuclearWinter]

Judge Richard Niehouse, in a 1985 ruling against the Cincinnati Board of Elections:

"There is no adequate and proper safeguard against the computers being programmed to distort the election results."


Eva Waskell, an election researcher for over ten years, weighed in with this observation:

"One major problem is that computer codes that run the machines are protected as trade secrets, which makes it very hard to have an election independently audited." She also added, "The election industry is virtually unregulated. There are no mandatory regulations or standards for accurately recording and counting votes."


Craig C. Donsanto, Deputy Attorney in the Justice Department, warned us in a July 4, 1989 edition of the Los Angeles Times:

"You have to have access to some degree of technical knowledge to penetrate an electronic tabulating system. Most of them have been or will be....simply because voting is the way we determine who gets power in this country."

The following is a quote from the same Los Angeles Times article on voter fraud (7-4-89):

"Some critics of computerized vote counting worry about the potential for "trapdoors", "time bombs" and "Trojan Horses". A computer operator with the correct password could place a trapdoor, or a series of hidden vote counting instructions inside the system, according to Election Watch Report. Once into the system, the operator could program the computer to count votes for one candidate as votes for another. After the votes have been changed to swing the election, the trapdoor could be closed."

 

[NuclearWinter]

In a letter, Attorney Ellis Rubin (3-24-92) described to Attorney General William Barr how to rig computerized voting:

"Anyone with access codes could punch into elections and change the results...and nobody would be the wiser. That also goes for the software involved."


As you can readily see, many people from different walks of life are worried about the real dangers associated with computerized voting. It's clear that we've opened a Pandora's Box. The only question now - is it too late to close the lid, or have all the evils already escaped?

 

[NuclearWinter]

One question that I have for ALL of you guys on this board.

DO YOU TRUST THE CORPORATE MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST AND FORTHRIGHT WITH YOU?

If you answered yes to this question, than you don't need to read any further because you obviously don't think we have a problem with the type of information that the citizens of this country are receiving.

But if you answered in the negative, all I can say is this, if the media isn't being 100% honest with you in regard to the information it disseminates, then how can we trust them with something as important as counting the votes in all of our major elections?

Think for a moment to whom we've given this responsibility. Believe me; the people who run the show aren't stupid. In fact, they're brilliant in their ingenious deceitfulness. And until we call them on it, they're going to keep snowing us like they've always done.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Good god. I haven't been on this board in two months. In that time the board has sold, It looks completely different, but this shithead is still not making any sense.

 

[eots]

Report says Pentagon manipulated intel By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
43 minutes ago



Pentagon officials undercut the intelligence community in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq by insisting in briefings to the White House that there was a clear relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Defense Department's inspector general said Friday.

Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the office headed by former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith took "inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al-Qaida connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies.

Gimble said that while the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy "were not illegal or unauthorized," they "did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers" at a time when the White House was moving toward war with Iraq.

"I can't think of a more devastating commentary," said Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich.

He cited Gimble's findings that Feith's office was, despite doubts expressed by the intelligence community, pushing conclusions that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague five months before the attack, and that there were "multiple areas of cooperation" between Iraq and al-Qaida, including shared pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," Levin said in an interview Thursday. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."

Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Friday the report "clearly shows that Doug Feith and others in that office exercised extremely poor judgment for which our nation, and our service members in particular, are paying a terrible price."

Republicans on the panel disagreed. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said the "probing questions" raised by Feith's policy group improved the intelligence process.

"I'm trying to figure out why we are here," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (news, bio, voting record), R-Ga., saying the office was doing its job of analyzing intelligence that had been gathered by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Gimble responded that at issue was that the information supplied by Feith's office in briefings to the National Security Council and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney was "provided without caveats" that there were varying opinions on its reliability.

Gimble's report said Feith's office had made assertions "that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community."

At the White House, spokesman Dana Perino said President Bush has revamped the U.S. spy community to try avoiding a repeat of flawed intelligence affecting policy decisions by creating a director of national intelligence and making other changes.

"I think what he has said is that he took responsibility, and that the intel was wrong, and that we had to take measures to revamp the intel community to make sure that it never happened again," Perino told reporters.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman denied that the office was producing its own intelligence products, saying they were challenging what was coming in from intelligence-gathering professionals, "looking at it with a critical eye."

Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Levin said the IG report is "very damning" and shows a Pentagon policy shop trying to shape intelligence to prove a link between al-Qaida and Saddam.

Levin in September 2005 had asked the inspector general to determine whether Feith's office's activities were appropriate, and if not, what remedies should be pursued.

The 2004 report from the Sept. 11 commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror organization before the U.S. invasion.

Asked to comment on the IG's findings, Feith said in a telephone interview that he had not seen the report but was pleased to hear that it concluded his office's activities were neither illegal nor unauthorized. He took strong issue, however, with the finding that some activities had been "inappropriate."

"The policy office has been smeared for years by allegations that its pre-Iraq-war work was somehow 'unlawful' or 'unauthorized' and that some information it gave to congressional committees was deceptive or misleading," said Feith, who left his Pentagon post in August 2005.

Feith called "bizarre" the inspector general's conclusion that some intelligence activities by the Office of Special Plans, which was created while Feith served as the undersecretary of defense for policy — the top policy position under then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — were inappropriate but not unauthorized.



Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press

 

[NuclearWinter]

In the 1988 presidential election, CBS was the first to call George Bush the winner at 9:17 PM - only 17 minutes after the polls closed, with voting stations still open in the western states.

What I'd like to know is - why the rush? We elect the president in early November, and he's not inaugurated until mid-January - over two months later. Why do we need to prematurely announce a winner after only 17 minutes!??? It takes county officials at least a month to verify all the vote totals. Are we SO greedy for results that we're willing to sacrifice the very sanctity of our democratic process for the "ruse" of speed that the networks are leading us to believe?

Look at what we've done. We've handed over the reponsibility to a snakelike beast. Plus, to add insult to injury, 60% of all the votes in this country are now classified as "computerized votes". That means we can't see them or physically count them....we have to simply TRUST that VNS does everything properly in their "invisible" little clandestine world.

 

[NuclearWinter]

Ok so with the above premise in mind folks, I'm going to let you in on one of the most crucial secrets of our current age. Here it is:

Do you know what scares the hell out of the "Controllers" more than anything?

Answer: That a "renegade" candidate will emerge on the scene who rallies and inspires the people to such an extent that he or she steamrolls into the Presidency and EXPOSES the Big Lie! The Controllers spend practically every waking moment trying to prevent this scenario. Because, you see, if this maverick candidate gets into office, the whole house of cards will tumble.

It'll be EXACTLY like the Wizard of Oz. Do you remember how feeble, horrified and in awe Dorothy and her cohorts were when they first entered Oz? The entirety of this huge, cumbersome, all-encompassing kingdom literally reduced them to trembling little saps.

But then the veil was removed. And after that, the Wizard would never be able to rule over them with such terrifying brilliance as before.

The Controllers will do anything in their power to keep from being exposed. And I'll tell ya; it wouldn't take much to do the job. Think about it - a candidate who is truly "of, for, and by the people" would go on TV and say, "Guess what. These guys have been deceiving you for years; here's how."

Then this renegade would go down the line and say, "This is a lie, this is a lie, this is a lie, this is a lie.....and here is how we're going to change things."

From that point forward, heads would start rolling and the Controllers, who have been plotting and deceiving us for at least a century or more, would stand like horrified deer in the headlights of a locomotive as their con job was brought out into the open.

 

[Annie]

Good god. I haven't been on this board in two months. In that time the board has sold, It looks completely different, but this shithead is still not making any sense.

LOL! Which one? Uh, don't call names, but glad to see you back!