Key Note Address to the Democratic National Convention of Denver

[elizorw...@rocketmail.com]

a. Importance of this day

This summer 150 years ago Abraham Lincoln addressed a convention like
this one. The address has come to be known as the House Divided
speech. No Convention of any party forever would be dishonored by
opening with this speech because time has not changed the enemy nor
his rules and bylaws, means and ways. But time has allowed the same
enemy to appear under other false colors. You lack experience in
dealing with Neo-Conservatives; you would know how to handle them were
they still called Slave Power. Lincoln lacked experience to deal with
the Slave Power; Lincoln would know how to deal with them without a
civil war were they still called Tories. Clinical psychopaths are
known for frequent change of names. Listen carefully to Lincoln
address with names updated for your present impasse:

GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: If we could first know where we are, and
whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to
do it. Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost
complete legal combination -- piece of machinery, so to speak --
compounded of ...
(to update, rules and bylaws, introducing of caucuses into 15 states
which had been primaries two elections before, proportional delegate
allocation instead of winner take all as the other party, voiding of
two state primaries which the other party attended undisturbed, moving
of ninety thousand outside voters to Iowa a year before primaries to
produce a queer singularity contrary to national polls, timing of
Spitzer outing, pressure put on un-pledged delegates to pledge before
time.)
Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do,
and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its
construction, and trace the evidences of design, and concert of
action, among its chief architects, from the beginning. ... Several
things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when
they were transpiring. ... We cannot absolutely know that all these
exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot
of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been
gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -
(to update, Herman, Roosevelt, Karl Crist, Charlie Rove, Karl Schumer,
Granholm, Pelosi, Kerry, Limbaugh, Axelrod, and Dean for instance) --
and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly
make the frame of a jail or a pen, all the tenons and mortices
exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different
pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too
many or too few -- not omitting even scaffolding -- or, if a single
piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and
prepared yet to bring such a piece in -- in such a case, we find it
impossible not to believe that (to update, Herman, Roosevelt, Crist,
Rove, Schumer, Granholm, Pelosi, Kerry, Limbaugh, Axelrod, and Dean)
all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a
common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.
(to update, Why mention punishing of a State primary? They were
bylawing for early Nevada primary, and not for or about early
primaries of other states possibly to be legislated by law makers and
a governor of the other party.)
Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche,
which we may, ere long, see filled with another Court decision,
declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a
State to exclude slavery from its limits. Our cause, then, must be
intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends -- those
whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work -- who do care for
the result.
Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen
hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of
resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance
against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we
gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle
through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud and
pampered enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now? --now, when that
same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent? The result is not
doubtful. We shall not fail -- if we stand firm, we shall not fail.
Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or
later, the victory is sure to come.


So Lincoln in 1858. Two years after this speech, at the Democratic
National Convention of 1860 the Slave Power moved to capture the whole
party but enough Democrats were energized by the speech to repulse the
attempt.

Had there been a Lincoln in the Democratic party of 1974 to give such
a speech, legacy Republicans would wake up and expel those around
Nixon who were framing him so they could take over the party. Since
eviction of Nixon, that party has fallen into hands of what has come
to be known as Neo-conservatives and is none other than the old Slave
Power of the Confederate states, Dixie States or Red States,
Evangelical Bible belt of Adventist zealots. know to Blacks still as
Kluxers or Klansmen.

Back in the year of that Lincoln speech, real democrats in the
Democratic party had been bound into impotence by rules and bylaws.
Americans had slumbered over a generation and allowed the Tory fifth
column to take over most positions of authority within the party one
after the other. When the fifth column made its final bid to take
total control, native democrats, real owners of the party, resisted.
It was almost too late to outvote the fifth column.

Wikipedia: At the Democratic National Convention in April 1860, 50
southern Democrats walked out over a platform dispute. Six candidates
were nominated including Stephen Douglas, US Senator from of Illinois.
On the 57th ballot, Douglas was still ahead, but still 50 votes short
of nomination. In desperation, on May 3 the delegates agreed to stop
voting and adjourn the convention. Democrats convened again on June
18. This time 110 southern delegates led by properly called Fire-
Eaters, walked out when the convention would not adopt a resolution
supporting slavery in the territories. After many ballots, the
remaining Democrats nominated the ticket of Stephen A. Douglas of
Illinois for President. Southern Democrats reconvened in Richmond,
Virginia, and on June 28 nominated the pro-slavery incumbent Vice
President, John Cabell Breckinridge of Kentucky, for President.
Douglas had an important presence in southern cities, especially among
Irish Americans. The election was held on November 6. It was
noteworthy for the exaggerated sectionalism of the vote, with Lincoln
not even on the ballot in nine Southern states and winning only two of
996 counties in the entire South. In the six states still permitting
slavery where he was on the ballot, he came in fourth in every state
except Delaware (3rd). Breckinridge, who was the sitting Vice-
President of the United States and the only candidate to later support
secession, won all the states that would form the Confederacy except
Virginia and Tennessee.


You know what followed. Two halves of Democratic party lost the
election to Mr. Lincoln of the Republican Party.

Now in this Convention of 2008 you have again a nominee supported by
Southern Red States and a nominee supported by the Northern Blue
States and the Democratic party is like splitting again. Unluckily
candidate of the Republican party is neither a Lincoln nor a Nixon.

Back in 1860 Slave power was confined to Southern half of the
Democratic party which was bad enough. This year, the Slave Power
which is now called Neo-Conservatives possesses the Republican party
since 32 years already and is now making a bid to capture the
Democratic Party as well. If they succeed, the next election will be
between Neo-cons and Neo-Libs and decent folk rendered impotent will
be whispering to each other that there is no difference between the
two extremes who have captured control of the two parties.

In this Convention native democrats have their last opportunity to
defeat a hostile take over of the party. Miss this opportunity and
both parties go under the same power. Legacy Republicans of the party
of Lincoln and legacy democrats of the party or Wilson, Kennedy,
Clinton, will have to come together in a third party condemned to weak
opposition for many years for lack of a neutral media while Slave
Power spreads its net under disguise of Homeland security over all
States. Homeland Security would be an affair for states rather than
federal had this fate not been already planned. Subversion of the
Republic through capture of its two parties has been planned very long
term.

In this Convention, legacy blue democrats have their last chance to
defeat the Red State takeover attempt. You still can expel the fifth
column. You still can recover the party for the Democratic base. Take
your party back if you dare but if you do not, call things by their
names, leave one more party to the Slave Power and move to a third
party where legacy Republicans will also join you. Cynthia McKinney
being the pioneer on this path, rally to her flag.

Attempt of the Slave power to capture the Democratic party is now to
be finalized in this Convention. The attempt can still be repulsed if
enough delegates review in their minds the rules and bylaws of the
last two years, introduction of caucuses in the last two elections
where there had been primaries before, the several court decisions
regarding law suits of Florida Democrats against Democratic National
Committee DNC, of McKinney against crossover manipulation of 2002, of
Mississippi blacks against crossovers in 2006, of gay marriage issues,
of partial birth abortion issues. Even though at first not very
obvious, every one of these court rulings has augmented grip of the
Neo cons over both parties and over the Republic.

You can repulse this assault on the Democratic party by voting down
the nominee given you by red state primaries and hijacked caucuses.
You all heard anecdotal evidence of caucuses being hijacked. Anecdotal
evidence stands in bad repute but if counted it would recover its good
name; a reply to a pollster is nothing but anecdote. The counting
makes it evidence but bad counting makes it bad evidence. You have
been dished bad evidence.

Texas caucus gives the show away. When the same total voters of the
same state on the same day produce results differing by 16 points
between primary and caucus, you know one of them has been tainted.
Bigger numbers of the base had the opportunity to vote in the primary
but the intricate conditions of participating in a caucus reduced
number of participants to a quarter. Of the two, caucus is tainted,
being suitable to attack by professional hijackers. You know which
nominee is favored by 16 points in the Texas caucuses over the Texas
primary.

You can vote here with justification to unseat all caucus delegates
for their being stolen delegates.

But you can do even better. Three primaries are obviously not tainted
by cross over raiders for reasons known to all of you: Florida,
Michigan and Puerto Rico primaries were not raided. You can view
results of these three primaries to be the best indicator of
Democratic base desire nationwide and pick the nominee accordingly.

Besides you know that Axelrod campaign invited Republicans to vote in
Democratic primary. Axelrod campaign did this from early 2007 till end
of February 2008. This campaign for Obama Republicans was done in
broad daylight. Thank you for the support but why are we whispering,
said Obama to republicans many times. Media pundits far from making a
secret of this, announced it as evidence of appeal. Michael Reagan,
son of the late president and conservative radio host in California,
invited Republicans to vote for Axelrod's client. His brother Ron
Reagan endorsed the client of Axelrod on CNN Larry King show. All
other conservative radio hosts did the same till end of February. But
in February also Democratic base blogs were alerted to enemy raiding
and forced DNC to take notice. Only then and only for one week from
March 1 did Limbaugh change accent. On March 8 Limbaugh was back to
his old track telling Republicans vote Obama in Mississippi. And from
March 1, mass media dropped the word Obamacan as if it had never ever
been used. Such complete coordination of mainstream media with the
lunatic conservative radio host is evidence of concert of the kind
once Lincoln discovered. Nowadays the operation ought to be watched
through lens of RICO. Organized crime.

The game played with so called exit polls was horrible. Relentless
repetition of how the cross over voters split according to exit polls
became an insult to human intelligence. Americans ought to be sorry if
any super delegate, any of the Party Leaders and Elected Officers
believed the fiction of exit polls that nine million Republicans cross
over and go through all the labor only to split between two democratic
candidates equally and thus nullify the effect of their votes.

Until March 1, until Rush warning, 70% of crossovers were freely
confessing that they voted for Obama. After Rush warning, that
percentage was reduced to 50%.

But mass media put an amazing spin on replies of primary raiders. Mass
media propagated that before march 1, non democrats split 70 to 30
for Obama but that after Rush operation chaos they split 50 to 50.
Shills on all blogs started fake debates on whether this meant Rush
had made a difference.

But what happened with confessions of raiders to exit pollsters is
this: all of them having voted for the client of Axelrod, in February
30% only of the cross over voters were lying to exit pollsters. In
March 50% lied to exit pollster. Look at the unintended implication:
as if these conservatives were absolute fools canceling out their so
valuable chaos votes. Fact is from beginning to end all raiders voted
for client of Axelrod. Operation chaos never was about a change in the
color of their votes. It is about their reply to exit pollsters. Any
dittohead knows that. When Rush says vote Clinton, it means nothing
but this: tell pollsters you voted Clinton. This gives the fifth
column among party leaders to put pressure on un-pledged delegates to
tilt to the other side.

Nine million republicans, card carrying and independent, voted for
Obama. That determined a quarter of the total pledged delegates. You
can unseat them here. A similar thing was done to Republican Party in
1952 to nominate Robert Taft against Eisenhower and cause defeat of
the party.

Republican Convention of 1952 possessed the wisdom of unseating the
stolen delegates and thus managed to nominate a winner ticket instead
of a loser. Taft campaign was accused of stealing delegate votes in
those States which in 2008 are the same red states who gave delegates
to client of Axelrod. Operation Fair Play unseated the stolen
delegates. At the time, these deceptive neo conservatives had the
Democratic party under their control and they were working for defeat
of Republican party by giving it a loser for candidate.

Wikipedia: When the 1952 Republican National Convention opened in
Chicago, most political experts rated Taft and Eisenhower as neck-and-
neck in the delegate vote totals. Eisenhower's managers, led by
Governor Dewey and Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.,
accused Taft of "stealing" delegate votes in Southern states such as
Texas and Georgia. They claimed that Taft's leaders in these states
had illegally refused to give delegate spots to Eisenhower supporters
and put Taft delegates in their place. Lodge and Dewey proposed to
evict the pro-Taft delegates in these states and replace them with pro-
Eisenhower delegates; they called this proposal "Fair Play". Although
Taft and his supporters angrily denied this charge, the convention
voted to support Fair Play 658 to 548, and Taft lost many Southern
delegates; this decided the nomination in Eisenhower's favor. However,
the mood at the convention was one of the most bitter and emotional in
American history; in one speech Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, a
Taft supporter, pointed at Governor Dewey on the convention floor and
accused him of leading the Republicans "down the road to defeat", and
mixed boos and cheers rang out from the delegates. In the end
Eisenhower took the nomination on the first ballot; to heal the wounds
caused by the battle he went to Taft's hotel suite and met with him.

Black votes for Obama are innocent of the plot. Blacks were made
victims of an elaborate deception. Had Obama not been available,
Axelrod in concert with Rove would do the same with Bill Richardson
and Hispanic votes. Hispanic districts of Texas would be given seven
delegates each but black districts only three. Hispanic voters would
then become victims of an elaborate deception, unintentionally
becoming instruments of the ruin of Democratic Party and by
consequence the prolongation of wars of aggression abroad. Now the
black voters are manipulated into this position. Black lawmakers in
the Congress resisted the manipulation until the mass media created
pressure became irresistible. Had media not suppressed voice of black
members of the congress, any client of Axelrod would just be ignored
by the black voters.

Such elaborate deception can only be defeated by collective wisdom of
the nation. It is too overwhelming for any small group of dedicated
good men. But collective wisdom of the nation can not be articulated
because mass media is partial to the deception. In this all important
nomination race the intricate web of deception proved overwhelming for
best brains of Democrats, Kennedy, Carter and Clintons as we saw
unfolding from January to June. In 2006 Clinton was without rival in
all the national polls and therefore subtle changes in rules and
bylaws escaped proper review: rules that would make all the difference
in January and February of 2008. Only if democrats had instead of all
those wedge issue policy positions this one principle: you shall not
make unnecessary rules. Only with such a principle ingrained could
Democrats prevent those subtle changes introducing caucuses in place
of primaries and differing allocation of delegates to Black and
Hispanic majority districts, and taking two big states out of the
race, could be objected to even before those rules appeared in their
full bloom. After the fact it is of course too late. Shills on all
blogs ere already positioned to pump garbage like same rules for all
and why did Clinton not object to the rules earlier. Rules made by
architects of elaborate deception are never the same for all parties.
It is a marvel that the Rules and Bylaws committee did not make a
rule like - all super delegates whose family names start with three
consonants have thirty votes each. Without an absolute position
against all unnecessary rules irrespective of all the appearance of
neutrality, democrats would let the rule pass and then on convention
floor it would turn out that all such names vote against Clinton.
Irreversible damage is done and shills chorus their mantra: rules are
rules and they are the same for all sides. But they are not. The
architects of deception know in advance if they will use a Black or a
Hispanic nominee to steal the nomination process and then lose the
general election. Accordingly they allocate seven delegates to the
Black or Hispanic majority districts of Texas where they also bring
the rule of division by district instead of division by state. The
other districts get three delegates allocated to each. These are the
rules and they do have the appearance of being the same for both
sides, but they are not. Those who claim these rules are the same for
both sides in fact betray themselves to be part of a fifth column.

Lacking untainted media, you still had a channel to the collective
wisdom of the nation. It was the ballot box: three quarters of
democrats who voted in the primaries voted Clinton and that is the
message nearest to collective wisdom of the nation. But the elaborate
deception managed to muddy this fact. If only State party chairs would
segregate three colors of polling stations, one for Democrats, one for
Independents and one for crossovers, the grand deception with a
hundred concerted tricks, would have failed. You would know undiluted
vote of Democrats. That simple it was. Pollsters thus acquired the
authority of becoming sole interpreters of how the nation voted. And
pollsters are just guys with a job working for someone we don't really
know.

You can this evening find out unequivocally if three quarters of the
democratic base wish to nominate Clinton. Call in a hundred of the
oldest Denver Democrats. Attach two witnesses to each to attest. Pick
by lot one hundred districts from all over America. Printout lists of
first hundred Democrats in these districts. Put the list of hundred
names of each far off district on table for one Denver elder. In two
hours you have the results: Clinton or Obama. You will see they split
75 to 25 for Clinton. If there yet remains a delegate in doubt, let
each Denver elder call another hundred democrats of the district
entrusted to him, and then a third hundred and a fourth hundred until
even the fifth column among the party leaders and elected officers
cannot object further.

Democratic base wants to nominate Clinton because collective wisdom of
the base says Clinton is sure winner while any client of Axelrod is a
sure loser, be he Black or Hispanic, Irish or Italian, Catholic or
Moslem, male or female, gay or straight, pro-life or pro-choice,
partial-birth or post-birth, stem cell or global warming...

Details are muddied but totals are undisputable: 20 million voted
Republican ballot, 36 million voted Democratic ballot. Half the
difference is raider votes. It is political suicide to ignore this and
go ahead to worst defeat of Democrats ever.

With Obama, democrats lose the General election 30 to 70.

Clinton/Obama ticket reduces the democratic vote to 51 to 49 and with
such close margins, electronic voting machines play havoc. Diebold
takes over. You need big margins. Obama/Clinton ticket loses 49 to 51.

Any Democratic ticket with Axelrod's client on it still wins with 51%
if the Democratic National Convention votes for and announces the
following: Obama campaign personnel including staff of Daschle has
been dismissed; in case of a Democratic victory in November, the
cabinet will be as follows...; party position is suspended on all
wedge issues without exception including abortion, gay, stem cell,
anti-smoking, global warming, tariffs, national bank, amalgamation,
protestant succession and other specious phrases invented to delude a
whole nation. Constitution knows only two genders and therefore all
laws pertaining to a third gender are probably null and void for as
long as a third gender can not be brought into the constitution with
an amendment and if this is not so every university of the Republic
ought to come out and declare its position. The party has no bigoted
position and needs to claim none.

With Clinton ticket, Democrats win the general election 60 to 40.

Clinton/Cynthia McKinney ticket wins 70 to 30.

Clinton/Wesley Clark ticket wins 65 to 35.

Clinton/Denzel Washington ticket wins 60 to 40.

Clinton/Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr. ticket wins 60 to 40.

Clinton/Michael Moore ticket wins 55 to 45.

Independent ticket of Cynthia McKinney wins 55% if endorsed by
Kennedy, Carter and Clintons and a democratic cabinet announced. Wins
with even bigger margins if attacked by Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid,
Dean. Even bigger margins if perchance attacked by Lieberman. Loss of
some margin if endorsed by any of these.

Independent ticket of Clinton wins 60%. Republicans get 25% hard core
psychopaths and Democrat candidate of Axelrod gets the remaining 15%.

Cable Guy on Democratic ticket wins with 51% against Republicans on
condition that he not be a client of Axelrod and not be supported by
staff of Daschle, and not be endorsed by Gore and Kerry nor by Pelosi
and Dean.

This Convention can voice vote to put on probation all party leaders
who pressed for Clinton to give up early. These people aided the
elaborate deception that is about to convert the Democratic party into
Neo-Liberals as they converted the Republican party into Neo-
Conservatives. Same resources, similar methods.

This Convention can vote down from positions of responsibility all who
pushed for loser candidates in the previous two elections, all who
supported conversion of the primary states into caucus states, all who
prevented adoption of the Winner Take All rule for delegate
allocation.

In 1952 the unseating of stolen delegates from red states allowed Icke/
Nixon ticket to compete in the general election; implications have
been more immense than ever realized. At the time the Slave power of
red states had control of the Democratic party. Had the stolen
delegates managed to nominate Robert Taft and so give the election
again to Democratic party of that time, the Korean war would escalate
into the third world war. The blue prints were ready, the stocks were
sold, the press was squared and the middle class quiet prepared.

In 1952 Republican Convention became the platform on which the third
world war was prevented. Unseating of the stolen delegates prevented
the third world war.

In 2008 Democratic Convention is the platform on which the third
world war may be prevented. Unseating of the stolen delegates prevents
the third world war again.

Preventing of a world war is the most ungrateful job in the world
since the world will not come thanking you for it because the world
can not realize how close it was and therefore it is the most
satisfying thing there ever was for those who love that sort of
service to mankind.

In 1952 Eisenhower's campaign managers, led by Governor Dewey and
Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., accused Taft of
"stealing" delegate votes in Southern states such as Texas and
Georgia. By unseating those stolen delegates, Governor Dewey and
Senator Lodge and delegates who voted with them prevented the third
world war. Icke/Nixon ticket won the general election and at once
terminated the Korean war; and in the eight years of this ticket no
other war was started by the United States of America. Poor France was
next choice of those demons defeated in the Republican Convention of
1952. They shifted resources to drag France into Vietnam quagmire
because they must drag someone.

This Convention may go into history as the platform on which a world
war was prevented. It is up to you. You have the choice between
speaking up now or remaining silent forever. What say you?



b. Garbled message of Primaries

Mass media scripture quoting devil like admonished you to not overturn
the popular wish and hundred sixty of your own rank echoed the warning
leaving you speechless.

You need to know what the popular wish is before you can respect it.
You need to get the right message before you can do the right thing in
Lexington and Concord. Two silversmiths wake you up in small hours of
the night one saying the Hessians are coming and the other saying as
loudly or lauder the British are going; you need to know which
silversmith is for real before you act. But you already know one thing
from this commotion; that the conflicting messages are business
unusual and you better take steps also unusual for thy doom is in
business as usual; that you better not go back to sleep; you better
prepare for the worst.

False messenger appears as self confident as the real messenger or
more so because propagation of falsehood is a fine art which conveying
of truth is not. A few contradictions here and there do not perturb
the spreaders of falsehood; like, if the British are going and not
coming, surely this message could wait till morning.

You are lost if you fail to separate false clauses skillfully embedded
into an otherwise genuine message. A reproducing cell does ill to the
whole body if it reproduces the virus also ingeniously embedded.

Corrupters of messages, viral or human alike, defy identification.
They simulate and dissimulate skillfully. If not identified in time
their success is as assured as your failure.

What was the popular wish in these primaries?

For three nominees of the Republican party voted twenty million
citizens. Ten million votes for the first and ten for the next two.

for two nominees of the Democratic party voted thirty-six million
citizens. One half for each.

Assuming genuine partisans of both parties interested in the
nomination process to be roughly equal give or take a million or two,
a quarter of the thirty six million voters in the Democratic primaries
are card carrying and other partisans of the rival party.

Of course you are not sure of that but can you tell us why you are
unsure? Ballots are about counting, about knowing exact numbers of the
voters for and against. But you are not sure. The assumption is bold.
You don't have the exact figures. You don't have the exact message.
This by itself is the first sign that the message has been tampered
with. In some states every voter who had not been a registered
Democrat but wished to express a preference for a nominee, has been
put on record; you can have name, address and all. But even in such
states the color of the actual vote in the voting booth remains
secret. You are left to infer actual preferences from how many non
democrats went in and how many votes for each nominee came out of a
polling station.

You have division for nominees by poll stations but you don't have
division for party members and raid voters. You don't know if only one
quarter of native democrats voted for the one nominee and three
quarters of native democrats voted for the other nominee. You don't
know what the party base knows by walking the streets and knowing
their neighbors. You do not know from ballot results.

Party Leaders and Elected Officers don't have the official and
verifiable figures. You do not have the unadulterated message, the
popular vote, the public wish. What the majority of Democratic party
members desired you do not know.

Besides there is this other source that tells the world what the
message is and this telling presented in form of figures has an
appearance much superior, more reliable than what the party base says.
You get two opposite readings of what was but one and the same
message; except one reading has semblance of numbers while the other
looks like a great number of anecdotes.

Anecdotes can be counted and become statistics but they won't be
counted if you don't count them.

Someone just out of a polling booth may tell you for whom he voted; I
might not tell but some do. Some tell it truthfully and some
deceptively. You don't know how many of each there are. Each answer is
anecdotal at best. But someone counts 1003 of these miserable
anecdotes, reduces ayes and nays into percentages, attaches a silly
plus or minus three points error margin, omits the raw number of them,
and runs back to his employer. The thing is done. Another reading is
put on a most important message we just received but could not read.
The boys from Chaos spread their reading of what you could not read
even with the help of a million election officers. And this new
reading is repeated by national networks till it became the only
possible reading. You become incapable of conceiving anything else.

After much art and no science you are in the end supposed to know
with calamitous certainty that the message says: exit Pharaoh go poll
my people to let Moses go! After this giant step it is but a small
step to conclude what a freak radio show master really wants, and what
his freak listeners really do when they hear what he says; you miss
his wink.

The rest is... well I hope not yet. Not if I find words for...

I will not talk any further about this other supposed source of policy
guidance because pretty soon there is going to be two more dirty
words: exit polls. These will join ranks of other dirty words of the
near future: momentum and Iowa, hope and change, patriot and
homeland...

All non democrats who vote for a nominee are on record in some states
but in other states they are not. End effect is that you do not know
for certain which of the two eighteen million voting blocks contains
in it the nine million card carrying and other partisans of the rival
party.

Here is the trickiest point of this business: you cannot say these
nine million votes are spoiler votes. Repetition since January has
added to your articles of faith that you cannot know their motive
being evil. But you can. You know that only half the nation, half of
the registered voters, vote in general elections. You also know that
in quiet years about ten percent of the electorate attends primaries.
This is not a quiet year. This is a junction year a fateful turning
point beyond which none can tell what lurks. In this year above a
quarter of the electorate attended primaries because stakes are high.
An all time record.

But still a quarter of electors voted means three quarters did not.
Three quarters wished not to make a choice between the nominees of the
party near half of them will vote for come November. That is as it
should be. If I am fed up with the Republican party and firmly decided
on voting Democrat in November, I do not go tell democrats who they
should nominate. I do not go to their primaries to pick a presidential
candidate for them leaving the rest of the ticket for State and local
officers as if I don't care. If I were fed up with voting Republican
in the general election, I would of course vote Democrat in November
but I would stay away from Democratic nomination process.

Every non democrat who sincerely means to vote democrat in November is
among the three quarters of eligible citizens who did not attend the
primaries. They will vote in November for the party candidate.

Every non democrat who voted in primaries is a spoiler vote and the
sum of them is nine million and it is mixed somewhere in either or
both of the eighteen million voting blocks.

Here is the need to separate a virus from the cell; here is the need
to identify spoiler clauses grafted into a true message; here is the
need to recognize which night riding silver smith is the real thing.
In retrospect you know of course that Paul Revere had the right
message; but you know not how the patriots of Lexington and Concord
recognized the correct message from among the many false ones; Tory
falsifications were all around them repeated in every gathering place
night after night till people went to sleep. You don't know how many
Tories pointed at Paul and accused him of lying. You do not know how
patriots recognized those accusers for actual liars. You do not know
why Paul Revere was believed, why Tories who accused him were not
believed. You do not know because these tales are not in the text
books any more. A future generation will not know Paul Revere. Another
will know neither Lexington nor Concord. And another generation will
believe the words give me liberty or give me death were made up by a
Tory biographer of Patrick Henry whose relatives became cruelest slave
breeders. There is no limit to perfidy, no bar to spoliation of
national heritage by precisely those whose ancestors had collaborated
with the enemy of the nation.

But here and today there is a thing you need to know with certainty
and do not know: where are those nine million spoiler votes.

Are the nine million spoiler votes all in the first block as giver and
receiver proudly proclaimed throughout the month of February? Are they
half of the Obama votes?

Are the nine million spoiler votes all in the second block as giver
and receiver coyly and defensively confessed throughout the month of
March? Are they half of the Clinton votes?

Are these nine million split between your two blocks canceling out as
the pundits have been claiming with mathematical certainties adorned
with cock and bull margins of error?

You have here three distinctly different messages where the genuine
message has been but one. There was one popular wish expressed by the
people who attended the primaries and will vote Democratic in
November. The message sent was one. But when this message arrived and
you read it, you read in three different ways because it has been
soiled and spoiled on the way. The spoliation allowed three readings
of what we know had been but one clear and distinct message. Three
quarters of democratic base nominated a candidate and you do not know
whom.

Three different readings of the same message must produce three
different factions regarding what action to take. It is wonderful that
the Party leaders and Elected Officers did indeed divide into three
factions; those who endorsed the first 18 million votes, those who
endorsed the second 18 million votes and those who remained
uncommitted.

But of course knowing is an art. It is not a science. What we cannot
know for a while, we can come to know suddenly. What was not knowable
yesterday can become so today even without new data. For some reason
some sight some noise stirs a lulled area of our perception and we
suddenly know what we held for unknowable. Once we know, we see
possibilities of action we would have thought undoable.


c. A Mental Test

noquarterusa.net Comment by rjj | 2008-06-07 13:46:55 Chuck Todd of
MSNBC is a consummate idiot. He is already trying to say that Hillary
must work harder for her supporters for Obama. Seems to be a talking
point. Everybody is saying that. It is a poke in the eye (a Rove
specialty ... but so many things are so very Rovian about the whole
campaign - particularly the thoroughness. Dems don't do detail).

Taylor Marsh Blogs: I'm telling you, there is some fvcked up shyt
going on. Maybe the DNC leaders are all addicted to oxycodone or
something, or drinking the blood of innocent children. Who the hell
knows? Shtuey | 05.09.2008 - 02:53 am That is the truest thing I've
heard in a while! I keep clicking my heels together but I still
haven't made it back to reality. sarnold51 | 05.09.2008 - 02:57 am


APA having been subverted long before the political parties, let us
become our own psychiatrists. Let us do a mental test.

I ask ONE question and you write on a piece of paper in friendly
capital letters YES or NO. Sign it with your name please. Consider you
are answering the day after mid term election of 2006.

Question: State of Texas was primary pure in 2000 and in 2004. No
caucuses, not a caucus anywhere nor for any number of delegates. Shall
we change the rule now and introduce caucuses for a third of the
delegates, YES or NO?

I can tell you from here, just looking at 800 Party leaders and
Elected Officers, that the number of YES answers is less than 160. It
is in fact around 80 plus minus ten.

640 of you answered No. 640 of you meant, if Texas was primary last
two elections, leave it primary; what the heck do you wish caucuses
for? If you got a problem with secret vote and open count, Jim,
Alexis, you two shouldn't be in the Democratic party anyway.

These 640 super delegates are sincere.

Another 80 answered No, but let me tell you the worst the soonest.
They are not sincere. There is among you this 160 who will split in
their answer to any question in early stages but move in unison from
inside three factions when push comes to shove ... you know. You ought
to know these talented players. But how are you to know them? Aye,
that is the question on which parties have gone bad.

Where are the Federalists, once party of Hamilton... where are the
Whigs? Where is the Republican-Democratic party of Jefferson and
Monroe?... Where is the Republican party of Lincoln and Nixon? Why are
the honest citizens last 34 years confined to the Democratic Party,
once the party of Slave power? They are gone down the drain because
the art of detecting and expelling a fifth columns remains
undiscovered.

Let me do the mental test more thoroughly for the purpose of
pioneering this art. The single question test did not bring out one
half of the fifth column among the Party leaders and elected officers.
Eighty fifth columnists undiscovered destroy all effectiveness of the
640 sincere leaders and elected officers. A ten question test will
smoke out the fifth column.

I ask ten questions and you write on a piece of paper in big friendly
capital letters again YES or NO for each number. sign it with your
names please. The date is August 25, 2008. Consider you are answering
day after mid term election of 2006.

Question One: Texas was primary pure in the two previous presidential
elections. Not caucus. Not a caucus anywhere nor for any number of
delegates. Shall we change the rule and introduce caucuses for a third
of the delegates, YES or NO?

Question Two: Shall we allocate delegates per senatorial district not
equal but according to number of Democratic votes in the mid term
election of 2006, YES or NO?

Question Three: if such allocation gives black majority districts
seven delegates each but to Hispanic majority districts three
delegates each, shall we just leave it so, YES or NO?

Question Four: now that we are agreed on proportional allocation of
delegates instead of Winner Take All, shall we deviate from division
statewide and do a division per district in Texas, YES or NO?

Question Five: though Republicans have statewide Winner Take All rule,
shall we stick to our proportional delegate allocation rule without a
debate, YES or NO?

Question Six: though Republicans have the same penalty of half vote
for primaries before February 5 and apply it to all (five ) states,
shall we deviate from it and declare penalty of zero vote for those
states, YES or NO?

Question Seven: though Republicans have the same penalty of half vote
for primaries before February 5 and apply it to all (five) states,
shall we pardon three small states by giving them so called permission
but punish two large states to which we somehow do not give
permission, YES or NO?

Question Eight: should we leave undiscovered who made it so that three
small states were given permission but two large states were not given
permission, YES or NO?

Question Nine: should we allow our Rules and Bylaws Committee to make
rules for actions of Republican Legislature and governor of Florida
without asking why this committee does not also make rules for the
Russian Legislature for the violation of which Democrats of Alaska are
to be punished, YES or NO?

Question Ten: Should we leave it uninvestigated if our Rules and
Bylaws Committee co-chair had been coordinating their deeds with the
infamous strategist of the rival party, YES or NO?

Thank you for the answers.

Let the these answers be counted by eight witnesses from the somewhat
scantily populated American Hall of Character: two decent Reps, Rick
Santorum and D'Amato; two honest Dems, McKinney and Richardson; four
respectable outsiders; the wronged Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the self
exiled author Gore Vidal, the bold Amy Goodman of Democracy Now and
the venerable Chomsky.

640 voted a straight NO ticket. NO to all ten questions. No, don't go
tempering with primary and caucus rules. No, don't go redistricting
Texas, no, don't give seven delegates to black districts against three
delegates to Hispanic districts of Texas. No, do not allocate a third
of Texas delegates to caucuses. No, don't make rules for governor of
Florida who is not under your jurisdiction. No, No, No... Jim, Alexis,
don't do it. Let well alone, let primaries remain, do not introduce
caucuses anywhere but Iowa and if you are really worried about
nomination dragging too long then why don't you just adopt the Winner
Take All rule as the republicans have it...

160 among Democratic Party Leaders and Elected Officers voted mixed
ticket; some questions get Yes, some get No. Look at the Pelosis; both
voted mixed tickets; some yes some no. But they are complementary. A
Yes on Pelosi Sr. ballot is a No on Pelosi Jr. ballot. A corollary
test would be interesting here if the Pelosis would cooperate but they
wont. The test we cannot conduct is this: asking them to answer the
same ten questions again. It would be curious to see if the Yes and No
answers changed places on both their ballots but still remained
complementary between mother and daughter. Had this test been
possible, psychiatrists of the world would have something to ponder
upon for a generation or two.

160 gave mixed answers; but these 160 among Party leaders and elected
officers split eighty to eighty on every one of the ten questions.
They don't agree among themselves on any one question.

Kerry and Lieberman answers are complementary just like Mother and
daughter Pelosi; Every Yes from the one is a No from the other.

Jim Roosevelt and Herman Alexis, co-chair of Rules and Bylaws, even
they do not agree in their ten Yeses and ten Nos. What a fifth column,
what a declining art. John Adams and John Jay were much better at it.

Same thing for Dean and Reid. They have managed to agree on
monstrosities like Texas caucuses and allocated seven delegates to
Black districts of Texas against three to Hispanic districts but in
their ten answers they disagree as if they were not of the same mind
on some things.

It would be interesting if there came a Lincoln now and forced
equivocal issues to decision, push came to shove and this Democratic
Party split here and now, the South going of course with candidate who
won the red caucuses, the North going with the candidate who won those
three primaries in which the spoilers had no interest for two
different reasons. Spoilers had no interest in the January Primaries
of Florida and Michigan because spoilers are very legalistic minded.
Rules and Bylaws committee of the Democratic Party is sacred to these
republicans who have such lively interest in Democratic nominations.
Its rulings immutable in their minds and the rulers of those rules
infallible. Only genuine Democrats cast ballots in those two annulled
primaries in contempt of DNC including Rules and Bylaws Committee RBC
co-chair Alexis Herman and Jim Roosevelt.

In the end when you can not read the message coming out of all the
other states because of spoiler pollution defying measurement, those
maligned primaries become voice of truth from the desert. And Puerto
Rico of course. Laud and clear is the message from Puerto Rico, last
of primaries, because spoilers don't live there in numbers. The
atmosphere of Puerto Rico does not agree with the evangelical Clannish
Slave power, our Tories. Hispanic TV of Puerto Rico filters the fake
momentum clamor that needed only ninety thousand votes in IOWA to
start rolling in contempt of millions of Florida and Michigan.

Thus we have two January primaries clean from spoilers and one June
primary; the earliest and the latest.

If a Lincoln rose and rejected compromise and forced issues to a
division better now than later, Southern Democrats of the caucus red
states should go with their candidate; Northern Democrats would go
with the Candidate preferred in third, fifth and last primaries that
attracted no spoilers.

Back in 1860 there was a Lincoln. two halves of the split party lost
in a three way election but they would not give up.

Now, if ran independent, candidate of the three unspoiled primaries
would get 60 percent in the general election. People happen to like
the choice of an unspoiled primary and are vary of results from
spoiled caucuses in red states.

Remaining 40 percent would split between candidate of Southern caucus
democrats and Republican who is not Abraham but Cain. Probably Cain
will get the 25% hard core psychopaths. That will leave 15% to the
candidate of southern caucuses.

But in 1860 the Democratic party might not split for the general
election. The Northern party might be able to expel the Slave power
without splitting the party. After all Slave power, with all the
extreme legalistic mind set, was still the sly criminal element and if
properly investigated, might be convicted for crimes. Because those
framed timbers Lincoln describes did not come without criminal doings
in the back ground. Soon as Dred Scott ruling came out of that Supreme
Court, people of perception surely recognized a criminal under layer;
you don't get such Judges into Supreme court by not interfering in the
previous decades, by not twisting arms, by not blackmailing
alternative candidates; there is always murder in the previous decade
of such framed timbers coming together. There are secret meetings,
secret fund transfers even from abroad, secret doings galore and every
one of these things is criminal. Reason they escape justice is that
offices which ought to see these things are precisely those offices
infiltrated first. Rules and Bylaws Committees.




d. Winner Take All:

Perhaps you know not that the very same thirty-six million votes,
including nine million spoilers and all, cast from January to June
that gave Obama about 150 delegate margin under the rule of
proportional allocation, the very same votes give Clinton 600 delegate
margin under the rule of Winner Take All as Republican Party have it.
Same republic, same voters, same votes and yet rule maker decides if
one nominee is 150 delegates ahead or on the contrary the other
nominee is 600 delegates ahead. Perhaps you do not see the foot prints
of Karl Rove outside the window of RBC, Democratic Rules and Bylaws
Committee. Good for your sanity if you don’t. But perhaps your sanity
is not worth much if you let psychopaths with an unnatural aptitude
for rule manipulation to sink the Republic.

Republican party has statewide Winner Take All rule for delegates of
many states. This is why Republican nominee collected enough delegates
so soon.

A certain type of DNC leaders started fussing about the race taking
too long and hurting the party. Their remedy was to put pressure on
the nominee who was one percent behind to give up. The one percent was
not a fair and undisputed lead. It was artificially produced by
spoiler votes and by nullifying the Democratic voters of Florida and
Michigan. Yet this group pressed relentlessly.

To protect the party from destruction was their rally to the flag. You
would expect these people so desirous of an early conclusion of the
Democratic race would have previously proposed to adopt the Winner
Take All rule which Republicans have. The bet is they never raised the
issue. They invented so many rules and made so many changes to the
Democratic nomination since the last election but never did they
suggest that Winner Take All rule of republicans ought to be adopted
for a speedy conclusion of the race. Never.

Do not think they found it beneath their dignity to adopt republican
rules. They did adopt others. For example the introduction of caucuses
into states where there were none.

In 1996 both parties had primaries only in every state except Iowa. No
caucuses anywhere else. Look at the bizarre picture that ensues for
states beside Iowa in the following elections. The thing is
unbelievable. And it is done with utmost low profile. Bloggers are
under the impression that these horrible caucuses have been in place
since a long time and they should be abolished. To the contrary the
monstrosities have only recently been introduced to replace the
traditional primaries.

In 2000 Republican party suddenly has caucuses in three more states.
And Republican nominee Mr. Bush has his biggest victories against Mr.
McCain in those newly introduced three caucus states.

In 2000 Democratic party still has no caucuses beside Iowa because
there is no reason on earth for introducing them in place of
primaries.

In 2004 Republicans have increased the caucus states to fifteen. That
year candidacy of Bush is assured and therefore Karl Rove does not
need them. So why does he increase the number? To provide cover for
Democratic rule makers. To provide the camouflage so people wont
notice something strange in Democratic party converting 20 primaries
into caucuses for no visible reason especially when republicans have
only three. In 2004 Democratic Primaries of 20 states or territories
are made caucuses; including Michigan and Puerto Rico. But Texas is
still primary as it always was.

In 2008 Democratic party rule makers make some more changes. Puerto
Rico, Michigan and some island territories are changed back from
caucus to primary. But Texas or rather a third of Texas delegates are
detached from the primary and are made subject to caucuses.

Texas case is a real give away because it invalidates the lame excuse
of caucuses being cheaper. Texas Primary is paid for any way. Texas
case has a second give away. It provides definitive proof for the
claim that caucuses can be hijacked. When in the same state, with the
same democratic voters, one nominee wins the primary but the other
wins the caucus, and the difference is no less than 16 points, you
know at once that the caucus has been hijacked. Texas case has a third
give away. You point at its message as meaning that the caucus has
been hijacked and you wait for the response from responsible people.
Those who counteract this conclusion with its opposite, those who
claim that more likely the primary has been hijacked while the caucus
has expressed true vote of the state democrats, those are the
psychopaths next door, the sociopath among you. To expose these
masters of disguise, this fifth column among Democrats is the biggest
benefit of the Texas caucus done in parallel to the Texas primary.

Now that you know caucuses were introduced first by the republicans in
2000 and later imitated by Democratic rule makers in 2004, think of
those who in March came out in panic and agitated for one of the
nominees to give up because prolonging the race would damage the
party. Think if they were sincere. Think if they were what they
appeared to be. Think if their real motive is not to damage the
Democratic party and make it go through a crushing defeat in November
and then be taken over by the fifth column which by next elections
will be called Neo-Libs, and bloggers will tire of listing its
similarities to Neo-cons: same glazed eyes, same fanatical cliché
parrots, same intolerance, harshness, shrillness, same cult like
demonstrations, foaming, fainting as at faith healing shows.

Think of these people and wonder why they never wanted to adopt the
rule of Winner Takes all the delegates.

Here is why they were in dread of that rule. Here is how in these
primaries and caucuses neither the voters nor the vote counters but
the rule makers have decided the outcome.

If Winner of a state takes all the delegates of that state, if that
were the rule adopted by Democratic rule makers just as Republicans
have it, the results would be as follows. Think the most repeated
mantra of these nominations, think where momentum pundits would be if
this were the rule.

Winner Take All Democratic delegate allocation: with the existing vote
count.

January:

HC takes 335 delegates of NH, MI, FL, all primaries
BO takes 115 delegates of IO, NV, SC all caucuses except SC with large
black population.

See where the real momentum is. The momentum we have been hearing
about was created by no more than 90 thousand votes in IO for BO. Just
90 thousand for Obama against 70 thousand for Clinton. Momentum.
Nothing compared to millions of Florida and Michigan.

February 5:

HC takes 1028 delegates of AS, AZ, AR, CA, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OK, TN. All
primaries except Samoa and NM.
BO takes 687 delegates of AL, CT, DE, GA, IL, MO, UT primaries and
AK, CO, ID, KA, MN, ND, caucuses

Why could the Samoa caucus not be hijacked? No Rush ditto heads there,
no confederate slave power, no neo cons. A handful would be enough to
hijack the caucus but they lacked.
Why could the New Mexico caucus not be hijacked? Because it was caucus
in name only. Thanks to the vice chair of state party the caucus was
conducted very decently. The cult caravan of zealots had no
opportunity of hijacking it.

Wonder why Illinois and Utah were not caucuses? Because there was no
need to hijack there. For different reasons. In every one of these
primaries, a factor was at hand making it possible to subvert the
democratic votes. Either black voters were in big numbers or Klan
voters. What an alliance of the chicken and the fox.

Imagine these caucuses and primaries were fixed sometime in 2006 when
BO was not yet in the picture for the democratic base. But Rove had it
all planned. Had BO not compromised himself possibly by purchase of
that Chicago house for 1.6 million dollars, then Rove might pick Bill
Richardson for victor of nomination and loser of November. In that
case, all states with substantial Hispanic population would be made
primaries but other states would be made caucuses to hijack.

Feb 9 to 19:

HC takes zero delegates.
BO takes 454 delegates of LA, Dems Abroad, DC, MD, VA, WI primaries
and NE, VI, WA, ME, HA caucuses.

Karl Rove had it easy: where large numbers of blacks vote, let it
remain primary as before. Where this is not the case, make it caucus
to be hijacked by mobile cult caravans trained in the summer of 2007.

March:

HC takes 481 delegates of OH, RI, TX primaries.
BO takes 115 delegates of VT, MS, primaries and WY, ND, CO, caucuses.

Why Vermont, though New England, was left a primary? Because Dean was
sure he could deliver it. And MS must have enough black votes to
delude.

April:

HC takes 158 delegates of PA primary
BO takes 4 delegates of Guam caucus or convention.

May:

HC takes 151 delegates of IN, WV, KY primaries
BO takes 180 delegates of NC, OR primaries and AK convention or
caucus.

June:

HC takes 70 delegates of PR and SD primaries
BO takes 16 delegates of MT primary.

HC took 20 primaries and 2 Caucuses
BO took 18 primaries and 18 caucuses.

How are the cumulative totals by each month? How goes the momentum
from January to June every month?

BO cumulative: 115, 802, 1256, 1371, 1375, 1555, 1571

HC cumulative: 335, 1363, 1363, 1844, 2002, 2153, 2223

How many delegates is the lead margin of HC by end of every month?
220 561 107 473 627 598 652

And that is real momentum. 2223 pledged delegates for HC with margin
of 652 in June. That is really the popular endorsement, the public
vote which super delegates cannot overturn because their number is
less than the margin. Because nomination is decided before the super
delegates vote. In this picture, there is no need to play psychology
with super delegates week after weak from February to June.

Friends, take good note. These are results of these same votes that
were cast from January to June in those same states by those same
rules, fair or foul, sincere or spoiler. Same rules except one; this
is the result if just one rule is otherwise: instead of proportional
allocation of delegates, this is the result if the rule is winner take
all per state. It is not a wild rule, a wild fantasy. It is not an
utopia since it is the rule of republicans in many states. It is not a
rule to have been rejected out of hand if the present DNC sincerely
cared for an early conclusion of the nomination process as they have
been claiming from March to June. It is the rule they ought to have
adopted most naturally. The very same votes cast from January to June
produce 600 delegates margin for Clinton if the rule is winner take
all. The very same votes produce under 200 delegate margin for Obama
if winner take all is not the rule. Truly this time neither voters nor
vote counters have chosen a candidate: rule makers have decided the
outcome. All that is missing to complete the case for RICO is a
whistleblower to come out with tape of a meeting between Democratic
Rule makers and Republican strategist.

From the results of that rule you see why this DNC did not adopt this
rule of winner take all. But you also see that rule makers have
decided the candidate, not the voters, not even the spoiler voters.

There might still be an excuse for them; they might claim that a
prolonged nomination all the way to the convention is good for the
party; it is good publicity, it energizes the party base for the
general election. But DNC top brass threw away that excuse in March
when they came out putting pressure on un-pledged delegates to become
pledged quickly lest prolonged race divide the party. Had this fear
been sincere, the obvious solution of it would be winner take all as
the republican party has it.

There was no excuse for forcing the pledged delegates to take sides
before the convention. That was done and with complicity of mass
media, monstrosity of the request was smoothed out; it was tantamount
to saying Puerto Rico should not wait till June to vote; an absurd
demand.

Every one of the top brass that publicly warned unpledged delegates
not to dare to overturn the popular wish might with equal injustice
request that Puerto Rico should not overturn the popular wish of those
90 thousand voters in Iowa who voted BO. In fact, they might with
equal gravity, given media complicity, claim that once 90 thousand of
Iowa voted for BO, no states afterwards should overturn this popular
demand. Every subsequent state should respect the popular wish of the
previous one. In essence this would mean the first three voters of
Iowa decide the race and no voter after them should overturn the
result of the first three voters of Iowa. No words are sufficient to
highlight the absurdity: it is like saying the first three voting
Americans decide the race and voting must stop right there because
subsequent voters would be overturning the wish of earliest majority.



e. Miracle of IOWA

momentum of 90,000 votes

Take a closer look at Iowa. Look at it from a year before January of
2008. There is an anomaly there. It is the Rovian singularity
essential for the momentum.

National polls from January of 2005 to January of 2008 show Clinton as
sole victor for 2008. Always above 50%. The next Democrat is at single
digits, be it Gore or Kerry in 2006 or Edwards in 2007. So the
national polls, but not so Iowa polls. In Iowa Clinton is not top
candidate. Polls show BO ahead of Clinton. Take note this is Iowa, not
Illinois. Why should Democrats of Iowa from January of 2007 go for BO?
And when the voting day arrives, in January of 2008, BO gets 90,000
votes in Iowa caucuses. It is done. Media has its staple talking
point: momentum... there is no stopping...

Iowa could be on the same list as Florida and Michigan, and declared
null and void. Rules and Bylaws committee could easily do that. No big
deal and would deserve no big fuss because in 2008 January Iowa caucus
compares to Florida primary thus:

Iowa: 2 million eligible voters; 236,000 voted Democrat; 119,000
voted Rep. Turnout 16%.

Florida: 12.5 million eligible voters; 1.7 million voted Democrat; 1.9
m voted Rep. Turnout 34%.

Democrat votes in Florida are eight times Iowa.
In fact Dem votes in Florida and Michigan are 2.3 million while Dem
votes of all other states voting in January are under 1.2 million.

Total eligible voters of Florida and Michigan are 20 million while
those of all other January states add to under ten million. These are
the numbers behind the Rovian momentum strategy: take Florida and
Michigan out of the picture; a thing impossible without bipartisan
underhand cooperation. Could not be done without coordination between
RBC of Democrats and Florida Governor Charles Crist of Republicans.

But let us look closer at what has happened in Iowa.

First point is the difference between 236 K voted Dem and 119 K voted
Rep. Why the difference? No perfect spin possible so this was just
passed over by the media. Had there been no Rovian singularity in
Iowa, there would be no reason for Dem voters to be twice as many as
Rep voters.

In Iowa caucus of 2000 about 86,000 voted rep while only 61,000 voted
Rep.

For whom did the 236,000 Dem voters vote in Iowa 2008?

90,000 voted BO
71,000 voted Edwards
68,000 voted HC
4,000 voted Bill Richardson.

If the 86,000 democrats who voted in 2000 are among the 140,000 who
voted for Edwards and HC, who are the 90,000 voters of BO?

Look at the difference between Dem and Rep voters; Dem voters are
twice Rep voters; But in Iowa presidential election of 2004 Bush won
with 752,000 votes to Kerry 742,000. Democrats in Iowa are not twice
republicans; they are less than Republicans. So you see the cross over
phenomenon in full bloom. 90,000 Reps voting BO; such is the engine of
that famous momentum; 90,000 alien votes. And for this engine to move
the vehicle, the much bigger engines of Florida and Michigan pulling
in the other direction have to be disabled.

BO margin over HC in Iowa is just 20,000 votes. Media calls that
momentum.

HC margin over total of all others in Michigan is 90,000 votes. HC
margin over BO in Florida is 300,000 votes. Media calls that nothing
at all. As if media is under jurisdiction of Rules and Bylaws
Committee of Democratic Party.

Apart from big difference in population, eligible voters and turnout,
the key difference of Iowa from both FL and MI is this: Republican
vote in FL and MI is not half of Dem vote; it is higher than Dem vote;
that means Reps in FL and MI are accounted for, voting in their own
primary. But not so in Iowa.

In Michigan 7.3 million eligible voters; 600,000 vote Dem; 868,000
vote Rep; turnout 20%.

Not so in Iowa. In Iowa, 90,000 reps vote on Dem ballot and they all
vote BO. You can right now call every single registered democrat voter
of Iowa and get their vote on the cell phone; you will be left with
90,000 unaccounted for. They were not registered democrats.

In Florida HC gets 867,000, BO gets 572.000, Edwards gets 243,000.
Proportions are similar to Michigan and Puerto Rico.

The two annulled primaries provide the nearest thing to the national
average because Republicans had no need of crossing over to garble
these two primaries of Democrats.

But why was Iowa an anomaly throughout 2007? Look at the polls for
four quarters of the year:

Margin of Hillary over BO in four quarters of 2007
National: +13 +7 +18 + 22
Clinton is ahead throughout the year despite all deliberate or other
errors in the poll.

Iowa: -12 +2 -1 +4

Why would Iowa so consistently poll HC lower throughout 2007; why in
January of 2007 HC is 12 points behind BO? What can Iowa know about
the nominees that the rest of the nation does not know? And when it is
voting time in January 2008, a full 90,000 from among 2 million
eligible voters go and vote for BO. It is not as if Iowans are
interested with big turnout.

Margin of Clinton over BO: four quarters of 2007
New Hampshire: +1 +14 +18 +19

In January of 2007 someone has operated on NH but somehow that
singularity has failed after the first quarter of the year. To find
out what has happened there, you would need to look at biographies of
the pollsters, strange changes in personnel, suppressed polling
companies who probably later recovered. Here too Rovian is the word.

f. From Tories to Slave Power to Neo-cons and soon to Neo-Libs

There is a link missing in the continuity or evolution from Tories in
the North to Neo-Conservatives of the Bible Belt Red Confederacy
States in the South. How did Tories of the North become Slave Power of
the South?

If not defeated in this Democratic convention, the psychopath fifth
column inside the Democratic party will capture full control and soon
be known as Neo-Liberals, making people marvel at the amazing
similarity of these fanatics who are taking control of the Democratic
Party in 2008 to those fanatics who took control of the Republican
party in 1974.

Slave Power is antecedent of not only the Klan but also of the
Evangelist Adventists deluded with imminent second coming, Bible Belt
fraud and ultimately Neo-Conservatives. But what is antecedent of the
Slave Power? Certainly not the founding fathers.

Reverend Wright came close but not quiet. The fault was not in the DNA
of the Republic. In the constitution was a defect that allowed entry
to the virus in the next generation. The only fault was in giving
respite of twenty years for slave owners to dissolve the enterprise
out of their own humanity. It was a harmless weakness then but for
three terms of John Adams during which the self exiled Tories returned
incognito and concentrated on sites of that weakness as infection
agents concentrate around wounds.

Do refresh your memories on pattern of advance of the Slave Power
despite all the wisdom of honest men of the North, despite clear
language of the Constitution, despite all sanity and common sense.

American Anti-Slavery Examiner 1836, by Angelina Grimke: Heard you not
the thunders of Divine anger, as the distant roar of the cannon came
rolling onward, from the Texian country, where Protestant American
Rebels are fighting with Mexican Republicans--for what? For the re-
establishment of "slavery"; yes! of American slavery in the bosom of a
Catholic Republic, where that system of robbery, violence, and wrong,
had been legally abolished for twelve years. Yes! citizens of the
United States, after plundering Mexico of her land, are now engaged in
deadly conflict, for the privilege of fastening chains, and collars,
and manacles--upon whom? upon the subjects of some foreign prince? No!
upon native born American Republican citizens, although the fathers of
these very men declared to the whole world, while struggling to free
themselves from the three penny taxes of an English king, that they
believed it to be a "self-evident" truth that "all men" were created
equal, and had an "unalienable right to liberty".

This then is how Tories got from Canada to the South. After a brief
period of hiding and flight they returned from Canada and penetrated
Mexican territories to carve out a Lebensraum for the Slave Power.
They succeeded behind a self made fog of Second Coming agitation from
1833 to the delusion of 1843. Pathetic members of Tory rank and file
mesmerized New England with the imminent coming of Christ while their
deeply dangerous masterminds prepared Mexican wars.

Today it is called the Bible belt. These are the same wretches who
found license in the Bible for their slavery as now they find license
in the Bible for all their abominations.

Though most Psychopaths are pathetic freaks, a few of them are deeply
dangerous and they all move in concert as dittos repeatedly
demonstrate. Psychopaths are deeply dangerous because in their
pathetic stage they do not ring alarm bells. They go through
situations unperceived like ghosts going through castle walls. There
is no monstrosity they wont commit if allowed opportunity and there is
no opportunity mankind wont allow them because they look most
pathetic. Their deeply dangerous ones know that it is over with their
deceitful mastery if the Republic ever recovers a healthy American
Psychiatrists Association who will certainly diagnose these freaks as
mentally deranged and state laws will have to bar them from voting.
What then awaits them is carefree life in mental sanatoriums but don't
think Karl Rove will settle for that with thanks to you without
another attempt at world domination through guns of America.

g. Psychopaths and Homeland Security, Your Honor

According to Homeland Security Ordnances after the serendipitous 911so
speedily come into effect, four percent of Americans are to be
recruited as informants to spy on the rest of America.

The four percent of Homeland Security has a scientific basis to it.
Martha Stout 2005 The Psychopath Next Door says four percent is the
minimum proportion of hard core psychopaths in America. Even Legacy
Rep bloggers have come to see that the hard core of Rep base is
psychopathic serial killers. Dem Bloggers say the cult-like campaign
teams of Axelrot are same as the Rep base psychopaths, glazed eyes,
screams, foam, fainting, all like in faith healing crowds.

Robert Canup says these cultists, serial killers, fanatics, are but
bottom of the barrel. For whatever mysterious reason, psychiatrists
are covering for the fact that top of the barrel or Socially Adept
Psychopaths, SAPs, go for careers like judge, prison warden, doctor,
even psychiatrist.

Robert Canup: "... It never seems to occur to most people that the
perfect place for a psychopathic serial killer to hide in society is
as a prosecutor or a judge; but I assure you that it occurs to the
Psychopaths of the world. ...John had one overriding dream; to become
a judge. Here was the greatest reward possible for a psychopath: to
put on the royal robes of the judiciary - to become a demigod - to
have others plead to Him and beg His indulgence, to have everyone rise
in awe and respect when He entered the room, for His word to literally
be law, to be able to create an almost endless amount of human misery,
just because He could, to punish summarily anyone who, quite
correctly, displayed contempt for Him, to have the power of life and
death over people, to be granted the only royal title available in the
United States: "Your Honor". ... How brilliant of his predecessors to
slip that one past the watchful eyes of the founding fathers - who
sought to establish an egalitarian society free of the mental disease
of royalty. There are, he reflected, no "Your Majesties" or "Your
Excellencies" in this country, but we quietly fooled everyone into
accepting "Your Honors".'

Also Robert Canup: ... It is difficult to believe that huge parts of
society have been built with the guidance of the mentally ill; but
they have been. The average person is heavily invested in doing things
the way Psychopaths want them done, and is unaware that the things
that the S.A.Ps have them doing are psychopathic. ... What evidence do
I have that S.A.Ps are running things? Here is an example: Almost
every newspaper in the United States has a S.A.P. monitoring the
letters to the editor section. This is because the letter to the
editor section of a newspaper is one outlet of the truth, and needs to
be monitored to insure that no one accidentally stumbles across any
part of what is actually going on. ... try sending letters -
containing the phrase "plausible lies" or which touch on the existence
of Socially Adept Psychopaths - to the editor of your local newspaper,
to see if any of them get published. I have done so repeatedly. None
of them have ever been published. ... The S.A.Ps have a problem, and
it is a terrible problem: there is no way for them to control the
Internet.

But they are working on the problem to which 911 was half their
solution so far.

h. Karl Rove has beaten us all alas.

Give the devil his due, said General Wesley Clark for the evil genius.
Karl Rove prevented candidacy of Clark in 2004. It would be a sure
winner ticket for the Democratic party and all the wars of aggression
would have ended four years before. Even a war in Georgia would not
have started if Neo-cons were not still in the White House. We would
be watching the Olympic games in China with easy minds and contented
hearts.

But as it is, the Neo-conservatives for whom we and every one else is
subhuman, and they puffed up with the incredible achievement of having
the White House in their possession and these urchins of Slave Power
bursting with envy at each gold medal deservedly won by China or each
silver medal won by a Papists as they call the Latin and Irish and
Poles or each bronze medal won by a Nigger as they call Africans,
these latter day Tories will fan the flames of war they have set to
several sovereign states and are dying to set fire to many more
nations, all the while we are rendered impotent spectators of
psychopaths' orgy and we are left with nothing to lose but our good
manners and we dread of losing them if in a fit of temper and at long
last we call these creatures what they call us.

It is just figure of speech to say that General Wesley Clark lost the
nomination race of 2004. Not general Clark but the Democratic Party is
the loser and with it the Republic is the loser and far off
populations are paying the price.

For subversion of the Republic, one or both political parties must
first be subverted. A political party cannot be subverted by Adventist
foaming zealots without first subverting the American Psychiatrists
association so that the mentally deranged lunatics can escape
detection. But still, if there is yet an honest psychiatrist left in
the US, let him find out which of the Democratic Party Leaders and
Elected officers have never mentioned the name of Wesley Clark since
January of 2005. And then let that psychiatrist explain why they are
the very same ones accused by the wailing democratic party base for
being the fifth column hell-bent on subverting the party.

Having thus contributed my two cents to the rapidly sinking capital of
the Republic, I wish you the reward that your hearts merit.

Thank you.


elizorw...@rocketmail.com