Romney

[Peter Lemkin]

I continue to believe that Romney's religion will not be determinative but secondary to his presidency. If he acts out of Mormon faith AND that exceeds some limit set for him, then he gets in trouble. It will, in effect, be an attempted coup.

...an awful large number of ORGANIZED Mormon-CIA and Mormon-FBI and no doubt Morman-other-intelligence+/or Miliary groups now exist. The Mormons were directly connected to the John Birch Society. Yes, some may want to 'revolt', but others are drooling at the opportunity to have him in a position of power....if not ultimate power.

Agree 100%. My only point is that presidential sponsorship is not a Mormon function. I would say that Romney as POTUS might well be the selectee because his Mormonism will coincide with their agenda. That, of course, would not be good to say the least.

cockeyed optimism, me thinks.... I can see NO good coming out of a Romney 'win'.....and little of an Obombya win....but with Obama there is still a chance of revolt; under Romney, IMHO, the forces of the Octopus would feel they could consolidate their control and put those of us who object into FEMA camps. etc. Democrats = 'friendly fascism'; Republicans of late = the full force of the old 1930-40s fascism, and then some [given the new technology and 'learned lessons of what not to do and say'].................. If you are trying to say that a Romney win has some hidden positives, I think you are wrong.

[Lauren Johnson]

I continue to believe that Romney's religion will not be determinative but secondary to his presidency. If he acts out of Mormon faith AND that exceeds some limit set for him, then he gets in trouble. It will, in effect, be an attempted coup.

...an awful large number of ORGANIZED Mormon-CIA and Mormon-FBI and no doubt Morman-other-intelligence+/or Miliary groups now exist. The Mormons were directly connected to the John Birch Society. Yes, some may want to 'revolt', but others are drooling at the opportunity to have him in a position of power....if not ultimate power.

Agree 100%. My only point is that presidential sponsorship is not a Mormon function. I would say that Romney as POTUS might well be the selectee because his Mormonism will coincide with their agenda. That, of course, would not be good to say the least.

cockeyed optimism, me thinks....

Cockeyed? COCKEYED?!! You want cockeyed. I'll show you cockeyed.

But seriously, what I am arguing is anything but optimistic unless you think being in the hands of the decades long regime of Sponsors we have had to endure as optimism. I am in fact saying that Romney as POTUS would signal that TPTB are allowing things to go to the next levels of hell. They will be acting towards the completion of some overall plan.

I see the Tea Party types as being cultivated toward becoming a Golden Dawn. That would be best accomplished with Obama as POTUS for four more years.

My new favored narrative is another four year term for Obama. He must be seen as stealing the election further enraging the looney right. How about some hypno-programmed Muslims going a killing spree of conservative Christians singing praise songs with one of them a notebook of secret Obama instructions. Obama can come in very handy still.

How's that for cockeyed?

This all gets falsified IF the election is an uneventful Obama victory with no serious evidence of vote flipping. Nate Silver at the NYT has Obama 86% chance of winning with a electoral college margin of 306 to 232. If on the other hand the election night is guided by the invisible hand to be a slim Obama victory with "evidence" of Obama vote tampering, then all hell breaks loose. Strategy of tension.

[Keith Millea]

Well,I'm not a researcher,but I sure remember Harry Dean warning us all about the first generation of this particular power group.He offers all the material in his manuscript for free.

I also remember the talk about the Mormon Mafia taking over the Howard Hughes estate.Nice Score!

Peter thanks for that video with Tarpley...very good.If the Democrats had any brains they would have made that video go viral....Ha Ha!

:monkeypiss:

[Peter Lemkin]

Well,I'm not a researcher,but I sure remember Harry Dean warning us all about the first generation of this particular power group.He offers all the material in his manuscript for free.

I also remember the talk about the Mormon Mafia taking over the Howard Hughes estate.Nice Score!

Peter thanks for that video with Tarpley...very good.If the Democrats had any brains they would have made that video go viral....Ha Ha!

:monkeypiss:

IF.....!

Yes, Harry Dean did warn us all [if any were listening] on the Mormons and their linked 'kin' - the John Birch Society...... both who played a role in Dallas [and so many other black ops!]

Yes, the Mormon 'score' of the Hughes-Maheu-CIA-Unspeakable entity was quite a coup....we'll know in a few days if they have scored even a bigger 'fish'.....they are IMHO a Thanatos [Thanatos (Greek: Θάνατος (Thánatos), "Death," from θνῄσκω - thnēskō, "to die, be dying" was the daemon personification of a death cult].....and will bring death to all they engage in their tentacles. Are you ready to be ruled by Borg from Planet Kolob?! {I kid you not...do your research...that is the Mormon's home Planet}.

[Lauren Johnson]

I worked with a Mormon in the '70s. He told me Battlestar Gallactica was pure Mormon doctrine, the story of survivors from a planet on an extended journey to find a new planet.

[Greg Burnham]

I worked with a Mormon in the '70s. He told me Battlestar Gallactica was pure Mormon doctrine, the story of survivors from a planet on an extended journey to find a new planet.

I was born and raised Catholic. I attended a seminary for 5 years. Now: I'm agnostic, an American (by birth), a human by Universal design, and a seeker of truth by choice.

JFK was a Catholic. He was feared during the 1960 campaign due to his religion, but that fear was ill founded.

Still, it was extremely difficult to convince Americans in the 1950's / early 1960's that JFK was:

1) an intelligent, "not beholden to Rome" candidate
2) a defender of the absolute separation of church and state
3) not even a very good Catholic (as per Jackie's judgment)

I don't know what kind of president Romney will make. We'll just have to see. But, I do know one thing: My decision will have nothing to do with his religion.

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial...the more it runs deep." -- (James Hepburn, Farewell America, 1968)

[David Healy]

I worked with a Mormon in the '70s. He told me Battlestar Gallactica was pure Mormon doctrine, the story of survivors from a planet on an extended journey to find a new planet.

I was born and raised Catholic. I attended a seminary for 5 years. Now: I'm agnostic, an American (by birth), a human by Universal design, and a seeker of truth by choice.

JFK was a Catholic. He was feared during the 1960 campaign due to his religion, but that fear was ill founded.

Still, it was extremely difficult to convince Americans in the 1950's / early 1960's that JFK was:

1) an intelligent, "not beholden to Rome" candidate
2) a defender of the absolute separation of church and state
3) not even a very good Catholic (as per Jackie's judgment)

I don't know what kind of president Romney will make. We'll just have to see. But, I do know one thing: My decision will have nothing to do with his religion.

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial...the more it runs deep." -- (James Hepburn, Farewell America, 1968)

hey Monk... Frankly I think Romney's a coward, in the hip pocket of neo-con Bill Kristol. He's a blank sheet of paper-empty suit kinda guy with a penchant for lying. Makes not a wit of difference whether or not he's a Mormon or a Buddhist with flat feet--guy's a turd. PERIOD...

David :loo:

[Peter Lemkin]

While Greg makes a valid point re: the fear many had that the Pope would be behind or in the Presidency of JFK, IMHO, Mormonism is a whole different kettle of fish or cult of fishy ideas...from the magic underwear to Planet Kolob to the multiple confidence crimes its founder was convicted of...and on and on...... Also, Romney is a Bishop of the Mormon Church. Had JFK been a Bishop, I don't think he'd have been electable!.....


....but whether a Romney from Kolob or a W from Zero, our election process, which was never very clean, has been made LESS so in recent decades - by both parties - but the Repugnacrats by far are in the lead on ways to rig the vote!....

U.S. Elections: Will the Dead Vote and Voting Machines be Hacked?
By Paul Craig Roberts

"He who casts a vote decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything."
-Joseph Stalin

Whether or not he said it, Stalin's quote has entered into folklore. For a vote to mean anything, those counting the ballots must have a greater respect for the integrity of democracy than they have lust for power.

Since Stalin's time, the technology has changed. With electronic voting machines, which leave no paper trail and are programmed with proprietary software, the count can be decided before the vote. Those who control the electronics can simply program voting machines to elect the candidate they want to win. Electronic voting is not transparent. When you vote electronically, you do not know for whom you are voting. Only the machine knows.

According to most polls, the race for the White House is too-close-to-call. History has shown that when an election is close and there's no expectation for a clear winner, these are the easiest ones to steal. Even more important, the divergence between exit polls, perhaps indicating the real winner, and the stolen result, if not overdone, can be very small. Those who stole the election can easily put on TV enough experts to explain that the divergence between the exit polls and the vote count is not statistically significant or is because women or racial minorities or members of one party were disproportionately questioned in exit polls.

There have been recent reports that, because of costs, exit polls in the 2012 presidential election will no longer be conducted on the usual comprehensive basis in order to save money. If the reports are correct, no check remains on election theft.

Digital Votes

In a fascinating article in Harper's Magazine (October 26, 2012) Victoria Collier notes that in the old technology, election theft depended on the power of machine politicians, such as Louisiana Senator Huey Long, to prevent exposure.

With the advent of modern technology, Collier writes that "a brave new world of election rigging emerged." The brave new world of election theft was created by "the mass adoption of computerized voting technology and the outsourcing of our elections to a handful of corporations that operate in the shadows, with little oversight or accountability. This privatization of our elections has occurred without public knowledge or consent, leading to one of the most dangerous and least understood crisis in the history of American democracy. We have actually lost the ability to verify election results."

The old ballot-box fraud was localized and limited in its reach. Electronic voting allows elections to be rigged on a statewide and national scale. Moreover, with electronic voting there are no missing ballot boxes to recover from the Louisiana bayous. Using proprietary corporate software, the vote count is what the software specifies.

The first two presidential elections in the 21st century are infamous. George W. Bush's win over Al Gore was decided by the Republicans on the US Supreme Court who stopped the Florida vote recount.

In 2004, George W. Bush won the vote count although exit polls indicated that he had been defeated by John Kerry. Collier reports:

"Late on Election Day, John Kerry showed an insurmountable lead in exit polling, and many considered his victory all but certified. Yet the final vote tallies in thirty states deviated widely from exit polls, with discrepancies favoring George W. Bush in all but nine. The greatest disparities were concentrated in battleground states -- particularly Ohio. In one Ohio precinct, exit polls indicated that Kerry should have received 67 percent of the vote, but the certified tally gave him only 38 percent. The odds of such an unexpected outcome occurring only as a result of sampling error are 1 in 867,205,553. To quote Lou Harris, who has long been regarded as the father of modern political polling: 'Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen.'"

The electronic vote theft era, Collier reports...

"...was inaugurated by Chuck Hagel, an unknown millionaire who ran for one of Nebraska's U.S. Senate seats in 1996. Initially Hagel trailed the popular Democratic governor, Ben Nelson, who had been elected in a landslide two years earlier. Three days before the election, however, a poll conducted by the Omaha World-Herald showed a dead heat, with 47 percent of respondents favoring each candidate. David Moore, who was then managing editor of the Gallup Poll, told the paper, 'We can't predict the outcome.'

"Hagel's victory in the general election, invariably referred to as an 'upset,' handed the seat to the G.O.P. for the first time in eighteen years. Hagel trounced Nelson by fifteen points. Even for those who had factored in the governor's deteriorating numbers and a last-minute barrage of negative ads, this divergence from pre-election polling was enough to raise eyebrows across the nation.

"Few Americans knew that until shortly before the election, Hagel had been chairman of the company whose computerized voting machines would soon count his own votes: Election Systems & Software (then called American Information Systems). Hagel stepped down from his post just two weeks before announcing his candidacy. Yet he retained millions of dollars in stock in the McCarthy Group, which owned ES&S. And Michael McCarthy, the parent company's founder, was Hagel's campaign treasurer."

Vote theft might also explain the defeat of Max Cleland, a Democratic Senator from Georgia. As Collier documents:

"In Georgia, for example, Diebold's voting machines reported the defeat of Democratic senator Max Cleland. Early polls had given the highly popular Cleland a solid lead over his Republican opponent, Saxby Chambliss, a favorite of the Christian right, the NRA, and George W. Bush (who made several campaign appearances on his behalf). As Election Day drew near, the contest narrowed. Chambliss, who had avoided military service, ran attack ads denouncing Cleland -- a Silver Star recipient who lost three limbs in Vietnam -- as a traitor for voting against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Two days before the election, a Zogby poll gave Chambliss a one-point lead among likely voters, while the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Cleland maintained a three-point advantage with the same group."

Cleland lost by seven points. In his 2009 autobiography, he accused computerized voting machines of being 'ripe for fraud.' Patched for fraud might have been more apt. In the month leading up to the election, Diebold employees, led by Bob Urosevich, applied a mysterious, uncertified software patch to 5,000 voting machines that Georgia had purchased in May.

"'We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do,' Diebold consultant and whistle-blower Chris Hood recounted in a 2006 Rolling Stone article. 'The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done. . . . It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state. . . . We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from [Bob] Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level.'"

When the Republican Supreme Court prevented the Florida recount in the deciding state between George W. Bush and Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election, the Democrats' response was to acquiesce in order not to shake the confidence of Americans in democracy. Similarly, John Kerry acquiesced in 2004 despite the large disparity between exit polls and vote counts. But how can Americans have confidence in democracy when voting is not transparent?

For now Republicans seem to have the technological advantage with their ownership of companies that produce electronic voting machines programmed by proprietary software, but in the future the advantage could shift to Democrats. Early voting aids electronic election theft. Successful and noncontroversial theft depends on knowing how to program the machines. The victory needs to be within the range of plausibility. Too big a victory raises eyebrows, but if the guess is wrong in the other direction, theft fails. Early voting helps the voting machine programmers decide how to set the machines.

Voting 2.0

The absence of transparency is a threat to whatever remains of American democracy. In the Summer 2011 issue of The Trends Journal, Gerald Celente made the point that "if we can bank online, we can vote online."

Think about it! Across the globe, trillions of dollars of bank transactions are made each day, and rarely are they compromised. If we can accurately count money online, we can certainly count votes accurately online. The only obstacles blocking online voting are entrenched political interests intent upon controlling the ballot box.

The lack of transparency has given rise to election litigation. On October 29, The Washington Post reported that "thousands of attorneys, representing the two major presidential candidates, their parties, unions, civil rights groups and voter-fraud watchdogs, are in place across the country, poised to challenge election results that may be called into question by machine failures, voter suppression or other allegations of illegal activity."

Voting online, if properly arranged, can provide the transparency that the current system lacks. While the GOP might remain active in voter suppression, the Democrats could no longer vote graveyards, and the count of those who do manage to vote would not be subject to secret proprietary software.

In 2005 the nonpartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform concluded that the integrity of elections was compromised by those who controlled the programming. Proprietary private ownership of voting technology is simply incompatible with transparent elections. A country without a transparent vote is a country without democracy.

[Greg Burnham]

I worked with a Mormon in the '70s. He told me Battlestar Gallactica was pure Mormon doctrine, the story of survivors from a planet on an extended journey to find a new planet.

I was born and raised Catholic. I attended a seminary for 5 years. Now: I'm agnostic, an American (by birth), a human by Universal design, and a seeker of truth by choice.

JFK was a Catholic. He was feared during the 1960 campaign due to his religion, but that fear was ill founded.

Still, it was extremely difficult to convince Americans in the 1950's / early 1960's that JFK was:

1) an intelligent, "not beholden to Rome" candidate
2) a defender of the absolute separation of church and state
3) not even a very good Catholic (as per Jackie's judgment)

I don't know what kind of president Romney will make. We'll just have to see. But, I do know one thing: My decision will have nothing to do with his religion.

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial...the more it runs deep." -- (James Hepburn, Farewell America, 1968)

hey Monk... Frankly I think Romney's a coward, in the hip pocket of neo-con Bill Kristol. He's a blank sheet of paper-empty suit kinda guy with a penchant for lying. Makes not a wit of difference whether or not he's a Mormon or a Buddhist with flat feet--guy's a turd. PERIOD...

David :loo:

David,

Just between you, me and everyone else who has ever read your opinions about the political parties: You think that ALL Republicans are turds. I don't. I think all politicians are turds.

[Lauren Johnson]

I worked with a Mormon in the '70s. He told me Battlestar Gallactica was pure Mormon doctrine, the story of survivors from a planet on an extended journey to find a new planet.

I was born and raised Catholic. I attended a seminary for 5 years. Now: I'm agnostic, an American (by birth), a human by Universal design, and a seeker of truth by choice.

JFK was a Catholic. He was feared during the 1960 campaign due to his religion, but that fear was ill founded.

Still, it was extremely difficult to convince Americans in the 1950's / early 1960's that JFK was:

1) an intelligent, "not beholden to Rome" candidate
2) a defender of the absolute separation of church and state
3) not even a very good Catholic (as per Jackie's judgment)

I don't know what kind of president Romney will make. We'll just have to see. But, I do know one thing: My decision will have nothing to do with his religion.

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial...the more it runs deep." -- (James Hepburn, Farewell America, 1968)

Greg, I was a Lutheran divinity student '68-'72 after my B.A in Philosophy. Then I spent 5 years trying to fit myself onto the Procrustean bed of ministry. Long gone after several decades and lifetimes.

Regarding Mormons: if you listened to Webster Tarpley's interview, he regards Mormonism as more of a political movement than a religion, at least in the upper echelons.