World War 3 - New World Order - Pole Shift - Age of Peace (2006-2012)

Another example is during the 1996 Republican Party Primary, where Pat Robertson was beating every other candidate in the early stages of the race, especially Bob Dole and Steve Forbes. Then when he rolled into Arizona with high hopes of another victory that would catapult him toward getting his party's nomination, something very strange happened. The computers broke down!

Yes, VNS had actually declared Buchanan the winner. Karen Johnson, Buchanan's Arizona State Coordinator, got a call from Governor Fife Symington congradulating her on what he called a "decisive" victory. Senator John Mccain also drafted a congradulatory letter, while all three networks and CNN said that Dole would definately finish third, while Forbes took second, and Buchanan won.

Then the computers mysteriously went down. When they came back up, guess what happened? Pat Buchanan ended up a distant third, while Bob Dole won!

When asked about this phenomenon, Buchanan joked about the computers (referring to the "fix" being in), when he said that "They seemed to work better after they brought 'em back!"

As mentioned, VNS is the only American company that counts votes in EVERY Federal election. Ponder this point for a moment. A faceless corporation that at least 95% of the American population probably doesn't even know about or have ever even heard of, is responsible for tabulating our votes.

This service was created by the Big Six in 1964 - one year after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and it is currently run by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and AP. Over the years, VNS has gone through a variety of name changes and it was originally called NES (News Election Services).

When you consider the ramifications of every Presidential , Congressional, and Gubernatorial race, you'll see that VNS is one of the most influential corporations in America. And yet, not many people have ever heard of it before.

How can such a fantastic responsibility be placed in the hands of a company that was developed by a consortium of corporate media conglomerates? The most glaring observation one could make from this situation is: if a faceless, unknown agency (VNS) is the sole vote counter rather than accountable local volunteers in each precinct, is it conceivable that a wealthy politician or political party could clandestinely pay them off to rig an election?

The answer is obvious, especially when so many of the American people don't even know about the existence of VNS.

Robert H. Lande, Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore in a letter (dated October 22, 2000) to the United States Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission on behalf of the American Antitrust Institute, said:

"The Government should file suit to break up the VNS (Voter News Service). Why the uniformity of wrong results? This can be explained by a lack of competition. All of the "competing" major networks are actually colluding with one another, and they call their collusion the VNS. If the six largest manufacturers of automobiles, canned food, or aluminum decided to close existing operations and pool resources to save money, the antitrust enforcement agencies would be after them immediately."

On Monday, November 2, 1988, the night before the off-year elections, ABC News posted hundreds of election results - one whole day before a single person ever placed a vote!!!!!

Now that we know the networks, CNN, FOX, and AP all get their election results from the same source - VNS - we need to ask ourselves, why is there such an emphasis on speed? Speed is the key, at least where the networks are concerned. Why? Because the illusion of reporting "speedy" results is the second piece of the puzzle needed to steal an election.

Here's the typical scenario:

A news anchor appears on your TV screen at one minute after the hour....one minute after the polls have closed in a certain part of the country. Naturally, he'll already have some "projections", and he'll even announce some winners - one minute after the polls close.

So they'll rack up their totals, show who is ahead; and focus their attention on one last intangible....those races that are "too close to call". And once you hear those words, you know you're in trouble. Because this is where there is an artificial huge gap in reporting - the lag time - when the news anchor talks to all his "boys" to get their expert opinion.

Of course, not once is the news anchor going to mention that all of their results are coming from VNS. That information isn't important enough for the American people to know I guess.

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!

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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."

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?

....I think WW3 started on 2001.

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.

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.

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.

The above scenario about the renegade candidate getting into office is the key to what's happening in the World right now. The Controllers obsess over every aspect of keeping the lid on their scam - from newscasts to mind control to elections. The thought of a renegade candidate who cares about the people and tells them the truth makes them wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, shivering with fear. All it would take is ONE stinking revelation of truth and the whole game is over. Do you get it?!!!! If given the opportunity, one person CAN change the World. If this candidate did speak to us, the Controller's vision of a One World hellish government would go down the drain in a heartbeat.

To combat this scenario from ever coming to fruition, the Controllers need to do one thing - NEVER allow one of those renegade candidates to get into office. So what do they do? They know how sick everyone is of their corrupt "two-party" system. Actually, it's nothing more than one snake with two-heads. So, they rig the election process. This is how the system currently operates. If punch card ballots are used, then after everyone votes and the polls close, the "results" are either taken to county headquarters or shipped directly to VNS....without verification. If voting is done by computer, then the machines are linked directly to the VNS super-computers via phone lines so that they can "interact". Then, minutes after the polls close, the networks project a winner based on supposed exit polls.

Within a day or so everything's swept under the rug, and then they have a month or two to make the actual results jive with the "projections". This, my friends, is called a "fix".

Now, get this. The Florida "hanging chad" debacle in the 2000 presidential election was vitally important for one very calculated reason. It made the voters so sick of punch card ballots that sometime soon a politician in Washington D.C. will come out and claim that they are going to "save" us all by sponsoring a bill that will put computers into every polling place across America. By touting how easy, fast, and reliable these computers are, they'll get the propaganda machine rolling and try to convince us all that this idea will be our salvation.

But when you look past their veil of lies, here's what will happen to put the "fix" in. As things stand now (especially with punch cards or hand ballots), it still takes an enormous amount of people to be corrupted. It takes election supervisors, volunteers, ect. But if we switch to 100% computerized voting, think how easy it'll be to "throw" an election. You'd only need to bribe or pay off one or two programmers in the whole country instead of countless county and party officials.

With one centralized computer existing in an invisible realm with programs that can't be checked due to "trade secrets", we'll never actually have a chance to see our ballots first-hand. We'll simply push a button, send our vote through cyberspace, and then place our TRUST in VNS, sleazy programmers, and the corporate media.