Debate Politics Forums - View Single Post - Surveillance without warrant and August plot

kathaksung · 02-17-08, 05:20 PM

532. We need an honest, transparent election (Iowa Primary lesson 1) (1/13/07)

Obama wins Iowa - a state with 92% white population. Why a white state which generally considered conservative has elected a black candidate? It means American people are too resentful to the policy of current government. They hate Iraq war and the loss of civil right.

How can we have this result? Because Iowa Democratic Primary Caucus is an honest, transparent one. Residents gathered at the site on time to discuss their choices then raise their hands. The counting is present, direct and clear. Voters know the result right away. It makes an election hard to be rigged.

As we have seen the mainstream of public opinion is to change the status quo, then Ron Paul should have won the Iowa Republican Caucus too. He has more distinctive flag than Obama has. But he only got 10%. Why? He obviously lost to a corruptive vote system in Iowa Republican Primary - ballot counting.
The ballot was counted by election office. Then an officer would tell you the result. A number can be faked or altered easily. Voters can hardly verify it individually.

This is proved in New Hampshire Primary:

Quote, "Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H
By admin | January 8, 2008
Sutton with 100% reporting reported 0 votes for paul but poster in Sutton posted:
My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know???
Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H. | Ron Paul War Room

Greenville Vote Discrepancy SAME as Sutton
Moreover, when Sutton had been found out, they quickly added 31 votes, and cited ‘human error.’ What is their excuse for this source, now showing Greenville at 25 votes:
NH Primary Results

The problem is, you have to take what they told you but can't verify it. They could tell you it's zero, that forgery is easy to be find out. They could also tell you it's 31 (or 25) then it is hard for you to confirm it's a rigging while the real votes may be 131 or 125.

-----------------

This is a covert totalitarian country. They select president by rigged election. (They control the voting office by intelligence) and justify the result by fake poll. (They manipulate public opinion by media)

533. "Change" what? (Iowa lesson 2, A covert totalitarian) (1/18/08)

Obama won Iowa Demo Caucus with a great victory, a big conflict to what poll predicted that Clinton led other Demo candidates. He owes the victory to "people want a change". The other candidates, Clinton and Edwards, also followed to claim that they are for "change" too. The ridiculous thing is, nobody dares to say what they try to change. It's a taboo. The utmost limit they could go is "to change the status quo". That's it. They stopped here.

What is the status quo? Let's review seven years since Bush stole the seat of US president. In his regime, US suffered 911 attack which now majority of American people think government more or less involved in. With that as justification he activated two wars in Mid-east: war on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. The government also passed Patriot Act - a law that seriously hurt civil rights of people. Bush also signed a lot of Presidential Directive and executive order to expand police power and erode civil liberty. In his ruling, torture and warrantless eavesdropping blossom and prosper. What else has he achieved? A high national debt you have to pay later.

So what is mainstream of public opinion for "change"? Simple, abandon the war policy, (withdraw from Iraq), invest money in domestic society (spend more for society than on war expense) and recover civil liberty. But even such a simple opinion became a taboo, a scarcity for candidates. They dare not to put it at the point of slogan. All they can do is shout "change". Change what? They dare not say.

In fact, despite most of GOP candidates (belongs to Bush regime, the target of change) the current leading Demo candidates are the same. Hillary and Edwards, both voted for Patriot Act and Iraq War authorization Bill. In this main point, they are no difference to Bush. How hypocrite they are when they cried "change". They should be the target of change. Even Obama is a puppet too. He voted for Patriot Act and voted for the bill for funding the Iraq war, although he voted against Iraq war authorization bill. People have nothing else to choose. Among three rotten apples, they have to choose the lesser one.

The only candidate with a distinctive flag is Ron Paul. He is anti - Iraq war and insists the value of civil liberty. But in a covert totalitarian, a disfavor of the Inside group will never win in a manipulated election.

Not only candidates dare not speak out what people are thinking, (maybe due to the media censorship) the Iraq war and civil rights topic are also the taboo of media. In election news from mainstream media (in my area, Mercury News which I collected a pile of newspaper) there are a lot of report about religious topic, immigration or medicare or sometimes even about economy. All these are long existed problem not related to Bush regime much. They just avoid to touch the topic of Iraq war and civil liberty. (notice what TV and newspaper report on campaign news)

"Change". Change what? Ask your candidate.

It's sad to see such a phenomenon. Candidate shout of "change" but dare not say what to change. That is totalitarian. People, candidates dare not speak up. Then an election became a puppet show. The Inside Group pick up candidate through rigged election. (Feds controlled election office) and make people believe the result through fake poll. (manipulated media).

534. Feds strategy (Iowa lesson 3) (1/23/08)

1. Pre-conception mind control. Iowa is a small state. Its Primary used to be neglected by media. But this time Media beat the drum to propaganda the Iowa Caucus in advance, said it's important because in most recent two elections, Iowa picked up the right choice - Bush. It hints that an Iowa choose President would be President of US. So Feds prepared two winners of their own in both parties: John Edwards and Mike Huckabee.

2. Bush is an unpopular president. He can sit on that chair due to the corrupt voting system. But after eight years bad performance, it's hard to keep GOP in top position anymore. The Insiders group has to have one of their own representative - John Edwards, to be the leading candidate of Demo. The tactic:

(1) Three years preparation. Edwards was planted in Iowa for more than three years before 08 Caucus. How can an individual, not very popular in his party, be so sure that he could win the next election that he even sacrifice four years to move to a small state? He is not that foresight. It was a strategy planned by his master - Feds.

(2) Create a cold weather to prevent rivals' supporter from attending. (Iowa Demo Caucus count on the heads of attendants) Feds created deadly cold temperatures and dangerous roads condition on Caucus day. Edwards' supporters would come to vote (Most of them informants of Feds, vote under discipline) while others may be halted by harsh weather.

(3) They thought a white domain, conservative state would prefer a white man to a woman or black.

Feds almost succeeded in this strategy. The nearly four years hard work in local Iowa and cold weather worked. Edwards beat the Hillary - a big banner of Demo of Bill Clinton, although it's a small, one point victory of 30% vs. 29%.

But Feds loses to the will of people. It didn't expect people are so resentful that they turned out despite the cold weather, abandoned racial prejudice to vote for Obama. People want change.

3. Why Feds planted Edwards in Iowa, not big state like Florida? Because Iowa is a small state easy to be influenced and be propagated as indicative. Giuliani runs Florida because there is more votes there. It's practical. Feds ran Iowa for its psychological operation. Iowa Demo Caucus count on heads of present voters. It's direct and clear and honest. Winning an honest campaign will justify the later rigged ones. I believe if Edwards had won the Iowa, then he would have been rewarded most victories in later primary of other states. The rest campaign count on ballots - a system easy to be rigged.

To reach their goal, Mercury News - the tool of the Feds - introduced the counting method of Iowa Demo Caucus in detail one day before the voting. The purpose is to show people: see, (if) Edwards win the first caucus, it's honest. So there will be no doubt when he wins all the way of other campaign. Only Feds under-estimated the indignation of the people. It failed in Iowa Demo caucus.

4. Un-common sense. Obama won Iowa Caucus because it was an honest voting. People view him the one who can cause change. Huckabee won Rep's Iowa with no reason. Just because the ballot counting is a corrupt system easy to be rigged.

The two favorites of the Feds, Edwards and Huckabee, are unpopular compare to their rivals. They too, have much less campaign fund then their rivals. Huckabee's victory may indicate Feds will send its representative to the president chair in rogue's way. They can manipulate a poll number or voting result willfully. No matter how unreasonable it is.

02-17-08, 05:20 PM	#27 (permalink)
kathaksung User Join Date: Sep 2007 Last Online: 09-17-08 09:01 PM Posts: 118 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts Gender:	Re: Surveillance without warrant and August plot 532. We need an honest, transparent election (Iowa Primary lesson 1) (1/13/07) Obama wins Iowa - a state with 92% white population. Why a white state which generally considered conservative has elected a black candidate? It means American people are too resentful to the policy of current government. They hate Iraq war and the loss of civil right. How can we have this result? Because Iowa Democratic Primary Caucus is an honest, transparent one. Residents gathered at the site on time to discuss their choices then raise their hands. The counting is present, direct and clear. Voters know the result right away. It makes an election hard to be rigged. As we have seen the mainstream of public opinion is to change the status quo, then Ron Paul should have won the Iowa Republican Caucus too. He has more distinctive flag than Obama has. But he only got 10%. Why? He obviously lost to a corruptive vote system in Iowa Republican Primary - ballot counting. The ballot was counted by election office. Then an officer would tell you the result. A number can be faked or altered easily. Voters can hardly verify it individually. This is proved in New Hampshire Primary: Quote, "Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H By admin \| January 8, 2008 Sutton with 100% reporting reported 0 votes for paul but poster in Sutton posted: My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know??? Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H. \| Ron Paul War Room Greenville Vote Discrepancy SAME as Sutton Moreover, when Sutton had been found out, they quickly added 31 votes, and cited ‘human error.’ What is their excuse for this source, now showing Greenville at 25 votes: NH Primary Results The problem is, you have to take what they told you but can't verify it. They could tell you it's zero, that forgery is easy to be find out. They could also tell you it's 31 (or 25) then it is hard for you to confirm it's a rigging while the real votes may be 131 or 125. ----------------- This is a covert totalitarian country. They select president by rigged election. (They control the voting office by intelligence) and justify the result by fake poll. (They manipulate public opinion by media) 533. "Change" what? (Iowa lesson 2, A covert totalitarian) (1/18/08) Obama won Iowa Demo Caucus with a great victory, a big conflict to what poll predicted that Clinton led other Demo candidates. He owes the victory to "people want a change". The other candidates, Clinton and Edwards, also followed to claim that they are for "change" too. The ridiculous thing is, nobody dares to say what they try to change. It's a taboo. The utmost limit they could go is "to change the status quo". That's it. They stopped here. What is the status quo? Let's review seven years since Bush stole the seat of US president. In his regime, US suffered 911 attack which now majority of American people think government more or less involved in. With that as justification he activated two wars in Mid-east: war on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. The government also passed Patriot Act - a law that seriously hurt civil rights of people. Bush also signed a lot of Presidential Directive and executive order to expand police power and erode civil liberty. In his ruling, torture and warrantless eavesdropping blossom and prosper. What else has he achieved? A high national debt you have to pay later. So what is mainstream of public opinion for "change"? Simple, abandon the war policy, (withdraw from Iraq), invest money in domestic society (spend more for society than on war expense) and recover civil liberty. But even such a simple opinion became a taboo, a scarcity for candidates. They dare not to put it at the point of slogan. All they can do is shout "change". Change what? They dare not say. In fact, despite most of GOP candidates (belongs to Bush regime, the target of change) the current leading Demo candidates are the same. Hillary and Edwards, both voted for Patriot Act and Iraq War authorization Bill. In this main point, they are no difference to Bush. How hypocrite they are when they cried "change". They should be the target of change. Even Obama is a puppet too. He voted for Patriot Act and voted for the bill for funding the Iraq war, although he voted against Iraq war authorization bill. People have nothing else to choose. Among three rotten apples, they have to choose the lesser one. The only candidate with a distinctive flag is Ron Paul. He is anti - Iraq war and insists the value of civil liberty. But in a covert totalitarian, a disfavor of the Inside group will never win in a manipulated election. Not only candidates dare not speak out what people are thinking, (maybe due to the media censorship) the Iraq war and civil rights topic are also the taboo of media. In election news from mainstream media (in my area, Mercury News which I collected a pile of newspaper) there are a lot of report about religious topic, immigration or medicare or sometimes even about economy. All these are long existed problem not related to Bush regime much. They just avoid to touch the topic of Iraq war and civil liberty. (notice what TV and newspaper report on campaign news) "Change". Change what? Ask your candidate. It's sad to see such a phenomenon. Candidate shout of "change" but dare not say what to change. That is totalitarian. People, candidates dare not speak up. Then an election became a puppet show. The Inside Group pick up candidate through rigged election. (Feds controlled election office) and make people believe the result through fake poll. (manipulated media). 534. Feds strategy (Iowa lesson 3) (1/23/08) 1. Pre-conception mind control. Iowa is a small state. Its Primary used to be neglected by media. But this time Media beat the drum to propaganda the Iowa Caucus in advance, said it's important because in most recent two elections, Iowa picked up the right choice - Bush. It hints that an Iowa choose President would be President of US. So Feds prepared two winners of their own in both parties: John Edwards and Mike Huckabee. 2. Bush is an unpopular president. He can sit on that chair due to the corrupt voting system. But after eight years bad performance, it's hard to keep GOP in top position anymore. The Insiders group has to have one of their own representative - John Edwards, to be the leading candidate of Demo. The tactic: (1) Three years preparation. Edwards was planted in Iowa for more than three years before 08 Caucus. How can an individual, not very popular in his party, be so sure that he could win the next election that he even sacrifice four years to move to a small state? He is not that foresight. It was a strategy planned by his master - Feds. (2) Create a cold weather to prevent rivals' supporter from attending. (Iowa Demo Caucus count on the heads of attendants) Feds created deadly cold temperatures and dangerous roads condition on Caucus day. Edwards' supporters would come to vote (Most of them informants of Feds, vote under discipline) while others may be halted by harsh weather. (3) They thought a white domain, conservative state would prefer a white man to a woman or black. Feds almost succeeded in this strategy. The nearly four years hard work in local Iowa and cold weather worked. Edwards beat the Hillary - a big banner of Demo of Bill Clinton, although it's a small, one point victory of 30% vs. 29%. But Feds loses to the will of people. It didn't expect people are so resentful that they turned out despite the cold weather, abandoned racial prejudice to vote for Obama. People want change. 3. Why Feds planted Edwards in Iowa, not big state like Florida? Because Iowa is a small state easy to be influenced and be propagated as indicative. Giuliani runs Florida because there is more votes there. It's practical. Feds ran Iowa for its psychological operation. Iowa Demo Caucus count on heads of present voters. It's direct and clear and honest. Winning an honest campaign will justify the later rigged ones. I believe if Edwards had won the Iowa, then he would have been rewarded most victories in later primary of other states. The rest campaign count on ballots - a system easy to be rigged. To reach their goal, Mercury News - the tool of the Feds - introduced the counting method of Iowa Demo Caucus in detail one day before the voting. The purpose is to show people: see, (if) Edwards win the first caucus, it's honest. So there will be no doubt when he wins all the way of other campaign. Only Feds under-estimated the indignation of the people. It failed in Iowa Demo caucus. 4. Un-common sense. Obama won Iowa Caucus because it was an honest voting. People view him the one who can cause change. Huckabee won Rep's Iowa with no reason. Just because the ballot counting is a corrupt system easy to be rigged. The two favorites of the Feds, Edwards and Huckabee, are unpopular compare to their rivals. They too, have much less campaign fund then their rivals. Huckabee's victory may indicate Feds will send its representative to the president chair in rogue's way. They can manipulate a poll number or voting result willfully. No matter how unreasonable it is.