This is the latest chapter from my book How the New Age Hijacked America:

Watching the election coverage on the eve of November 6^th, 2012, and while sifting through the media posturing, I noticed the emergence of what appeared to be some apparent anomalies related to the numbers. That, it turns out, was just the beginning.

Later that night, according to the jubilant media, Mitt Romney and his closest advisers were reportedly dumbfounded— “shell-shocked” was the word most often quoted relative to the emerging election night news. [1] After all Romney had been meeting with overflow audiences in the final days of the election while Obama turnouts during the same period seldom exceeded a couple thousand. The Democrat’s super hero apparently had simply morphed into a politician, and one with a mediocre record at that. Despite unusual bias and support from the media he had become clearly vulnerable.

Sure Democrats outnumbered Republicans but when it came down to it voter turnout would be the crucial issue—a fact that seemingly favored the GOP. Republican confidence also stemmed from the fact that the economy was the number one voter issue and that unemployment remained high and the economy sluggish. In fact unemployment figures did not even tell the story as many had either dispiritedly dropped out of the work force or were seriously underemployed.

This was, after all, the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression and there was, for anyone who was taking notice, an actual threat of a second recession due to looming tax hikes along with the presidential foot on the brake of oil and gas exploration and development. Intriguingly, like his friend, Putin, Obama was already finding himself at least indirectly in control of some of the greatest wealth the world has ever known and with a rather curious agenda that could keep this nation’s entrepreneurial talent tied in knots for a generation. Republicans were reportedly and assuredly taking note.

So what happened? Of course, not everyone tracks news that requires some personal study. And besides Republicans reportedly can’t put two coherent sentences together—which makes it tough for making analysis and fine distinctions. Also Obama always had an edge with the Electoral College—an edge that had to be overcome by winning the important “swing states,” the states that had a history of voting a majority for either party depending on the current mood and the issues. But there was also in the mix a Middle America, the Silent Majority or whatever name we assign to the people who often don’t get caught up in politics until just before the election and are usually the ones that actually decide the outcome. Recent polls had shown these folks were leaning strongly in Mitt’s direction.

Romney, with some help from his VP pick, Paul Ryan, had also seemingly and finally won over the Tea Party and evangelical conservatives (as much motivated now by their dislike for Obama as anything else). Part of the reason the prospects looked good was that four million registered Republicans, due to lack of enthusiasm with their flag bearer, John McCain, had declined to vote in 2008. These people now seemed energized to rejoin the fray. Just the opposite effect was expected for Democrats. The question was, then, could Romney capture the swing states—and in the final days of the election it looked like he could.

However, the news outlets subsequently trumpeted the amazing turnout of Obama’s electorate and quickly assigned the Republican Party to the trash-heap of history—citing both the changing mood and demographics of the nation. Political pundits were everywhere celebrating their wisdom and the opposition’s ignorance and folly. Actually ridicule had been the mainstay of both the media and the Administration for this entire election cycle beginning already with the GOP Primaries and carrying through the debates. The GOP candidates were described as “clowns.” Who would have even thought that Romney would or could be an actual option in the end? It must have been the result of obstinate conservative die-hards living in some alternate reality—some people apparently didn’t buy into or even understand what the intelligencia was serving up. After all, what do NASCAR rednecks know about anything?

Actually, in exasperation with the improbable persistence from conservative quarters, this challenge to enlightenment was cast by the media as a not so thinly veiled form of racism. Truly ignorant heresy! How could anyone with a conscience actually vote against the first black American President? It was true that in the beginning almost everyone had wanted him to succeed–even those who did not vote for him in 2008. Everyone hoped for the best. There was a certain catharsis in it. The nation had somehow atoned for its past mistakes. Having a black man as president was right and good. And, to throw him out unceremoniously after one term would have seemed crass and politically incorrect. He didn’t have to be perfect. The ship of state would not sink. And he was a good talker—a really good talker.

The catch was that that the alternate reality was truly on the other foot. It was and is actually the New Age reality which we are now experiencing—a reality in which situational ethics and fuzzy logic rule the day—in which right and wrong get inverted and swept up in an ethical maelstrom that leaves the nation and its people in a Wonderland of moral confusion sans guideposts—a significant space being created between us and our Constitution and our coveted States-Rights, fueled by Regulations, Executive Orders and a compliant and brow-beaten Congress. Rhetoric has advanced to the point that it has formed its own reality—a reality partly supported by criminal activity—a reality sometimes just half a wavelength or 180 degrees out of phase with the actual. All the energy input into this illusory system creates a force field that appears to be reality—until mounting dissonance creates the coming fatal cracks in its matrix.

Earlier I spoke of anomalies surfacing election night. Initially it just seemed odd to me that the state polls, especially those for the swing states, were apparently so far off. The most historically reliable of the polls, Gallop and Rasmussen, had tightened up in the final two days but still gave Romney a slight edge or at least parity—especially as he could expect a strong GOP turnout. [2] One of the jokes going around Twitter was that any early lead held by Obama’s supporters would be cancelled out once the Republicans got off work!

But as the night wore on it just got worse. And we all knew that when California finally came on line that the popular vote advantage we were watching for Romney would eventually disappear. The question then became how could the polls have missed a three million vote plurality for Obama? How could our expectations for GOP turnout fall so short? Well, clearly some people voted that were not represented by the polls. In fact, some people voted who were not people. And some people voted even though they didn’t vote. And some people voted repeatedly. One district in Pennsylvania had 141.1% of its registered voters supposedly vote. Unregistered immigrants who spoke no English, had no knowledge of the candidates, no party affiliation, etc., cast straight party votes for the Democrats. [3]

Though the above might normally be considered rather extreme examples of voter fraud it turned out to not be so unusual. Despite denials by Administration officials and MSNBC in particular such were too often characteristic of the election in general and of the all-important swing states in particular. In fact, here is the reality: at no time in history had the powers of incumbency complicit with the media and local criminals performed such a travesty in the name of democracy.  Should this election stand it will be a sad commentary on the state of the morals and integrity of this nation and a permanent smirch on the great history and place of America in the free world community.

One of the aspects of the numerous election numbers that seemed strange to me was the following. In 2008 there were approximately 69 million votes cast for Obama versus 60 million for McCain. Approximately four million GOP voters, unmotivated by the choices, stayed home. This still provided a total vote number of 129 million votes cast. It was then current wisdom that many of those who failed to vote were more conservative and lacked enthusiasm for their moderate flag bearer.  It was anticipated, however, that the bulk of these would turn out for the Romney/Ryan ticket energized by the Tea Party, a moderate who could attract Independents, a general GOP dislike of the nation’s direction under Obama (now considered a serious bad guy) and, of course, the state of the economy.

So in 2012 we have a total of only 120.5 million votes cast giving Obama a 2.7% plurality. This means, that despite all the ballot stuffing, we had 8.5 million less votes recorded than in 2008. Such was actually to be expected (including the ballot stuffing). However, this decline was projected to come mainly from Democratic ranks. It took a record turnout and a weak opponent in 2008 to provide Obama a whopping nine million vote margin. This time, though, there was not an overall record turnout, and considering what the GOP assayed was at stake there should have been a record turnout for them. Consequently, if there were 8.5 million less voters this time the attrition should have come mainly from the democrats and perhaps some Independents. So how could Obama still win by 3.25 million votes? The situation should have been a slam-dunk for Romney/Ryan and one of the reasons for their confidence coming up to the election. You could see it in their demeanors and you could also see it in the crowds. Because of what was at stake Republicans were not staying home this time—and, in fact, they didn’t. So what exactly happened to their votes? [4]

In a dubious attempt at explanation we were told afterwards that there was actually this great turnout for Obama after all. But to explain that you would have had to have, instead of 4 million, about 10 or 12 million registered Republicans who said they would vote, fail to vote. Not likely this time! It apparently wasn’t just block captains and precinct personnel who jiggered this election. Consequently, we must also look at the technology. [5] These people clearly took no chances. Like Obama’s former refrain, the math just doesn’t add up.

Relevance Magazine editor Dr. Phillip M. O’Halloran recently stated, “the computer voting system in this country is a veritable can of worms, so open to tampering that if there is no organized election fraud going on, the criminals are falling down on the job… computer vote fraud is not only feasible but, by its very nature, undetectable… it is hard to conceive of an organized criminal enterprise with such a favorable combination of high profit potential and low risk.” [6]

Common Cause, in a 2006 report entitled, Malfunction and Malfeasance: A Report on the Electronic Voting Machine Debacle, reported on four major studies that all concluded that voting machines were vulnerable to hacking and reprogramming. “Each report concluded DRE machines to be vulnerable to malfunction and also to tampering in which a computer-savvy hacker with minimal access to the machine could introduce malicious code to the DRE software and change the results of an election. Such manipulation could be undetectable. In machines equipped with a modem, it could even be done from a remote location.” One example is given of a machine in a previous election that was proven to have erroneously cast 100 thousand non-legitimate votes for a candidate.[7] And, by the way, all our voting machines have modems.[8]

Obama received a staggering 85% of the vote in Philadelphia in 2008, according to WikiLeaks a result of serious ballot-stuffing even then, which now pales in comparison to 99% of the vote in 2012.[9] Clearly none of our 8.5 million missing voters lives in Philadelphia! Accordingly Chris Zane asks pointedly, “With Philadelphia’s record unemployment, record homicide rate, and an Obama-induced economy that has literally bankrupted the city, could Obama have won 99% of the vote? Show us the ballots, Mr. President!” [10]

If ever there was a time when the ends were used to justify the means this was it. Even at this writing the pseudo-intellectual talking heads on TV are gloating over self-fulfilling prophecies that they blatantly exerted themselves to achieve. They do not care a tinker’s you-know-what if there was fraud. They got what they wanted. There was once a day when the media prided itself on serving the public in a watchdog role—part of the checks and balances that kept this nation safe. Watergate was an example of this kind of welcome journalistic integrity. However, the only place one can find this now is in obscure corners of the Internet—and one wonders now how long even this will be tolerated?

As of this writing there is more than enough evidence to throw the legitimate outcome of this election into doubt—despite the fact that there is indeed a growing number of people, and possibly soon to be a majority, who no longer see any particular value in this nation being a meritocracy. We have a coalition of educators, politically correct yuppies, government employees, New Agers, ethnic minorities and welfare recipients that are seemingly either ashamed of the American Dream, have given up on it or simply don’t understand it.

The subterfuge that should be obvious to even the casual observer is glossed over or even considered fair play as revenge for past Republican shenanigans. Unfortunately there may be some grist for this mill such as the Bush/Kerry year 2000 election replete with its hanging chads and other irregularities. People consequently justify their own current lack of integrity based on the idea that all politicians are dishonest and that they are just supporting the lessor of the evils with respect to options. [11]

However, this time was actually different—and in a way that is telling not only with respect to our national character but also with respect to the continued existence of the Constitution and even of the Republic we know as the United States of America. Versus the projected fulfillment of the Marxist dreams of his father we have allowed our President, his administration and all of its sycophants to vilify and ridicule possibly the cleanest and most honest presidential candidate in recent history—indeed a throwback in this arena and era. Many of us unfortunately stood by and let him be tarred by a group of dishonest, hypocritical, immoral, intellectually bankrupt yahoos.

Nevertheless and to a certain extent, regardless, there are two basic issues at play here. 1) If this nation wishes to choose a leader and a path that exudes the notion that government is responsible for wealth distribution and the assurance and maintenance of fairness to all (and assumes that government is actually capable of such) then it is clearly their right to make that choice, particularly if they also are offered a credible alternative. 2) However, the people of this nation also have a right to an honest and verifiable opportunity to validate whatever decision has been made through a lawful, legal and demonstrably accurate democratic process. Until that happens or can be proven to have happened there is a sizable portion of this people who cannot be expected to enthusiastically support our leadership. Consequently serious schisms will be too easy to maintain or exploit. What we are witnessing and are about to witness is a perfect case in point.

When we see that vested interests can buy up politicians at the state level who certify voting and control the programmable and hack-able technology used for voting and also own the software used for recording and processing votes in addition to the usual block captain hijinks at the precinct and district levels the legitimacy of our elections cannot now be guaranteed for even a minute. [12] When the final digital audit trails for this election are actually in the hands of a foreign company with ties to certain infamous liberal globalists we might justifiably wonder how this ever came about. [13] The opportunity for fraud exists at so many levels and with so many incentives—the lack of safeguards is simply incredible. The question must be asked: how did we ever allow ourselves to become so vulnerable? [14]

It also used to be that exit polls were a check on the actual vote data. Interestingly the exit polls for Bush/Kerry suffered some disrepute by showing Kerry with a 3% advantage while the result ended with a 2.5% plurality for Bush—probably a point that should have generated more attention at the time. However exit polls exist for two different purposes. The main one it seems is so that the news outlets can do their thing—like forecast winners hours (or, in some cases, days) before all the votes are counted. However, in the current state of largely digital voting exit polls could serve, if rigorously done, to check on and validate to some extent the tallies derived from the voting process.

The number of exit polls was reduced in this election cycle purportedly due to cost. [15] They were concentrated in areas deemed key to the election. The exit polls not only questioned who voted for whom but also other items of interest. One of the reasons Romney/Ryan thought they could win was reflected in the fact that, according to and as confirmed by the exit polls, 60% of those who actually cast votes indicated that the economy was the main factor of consideration, and 52% of those polled expressed that the country “was on the wrong track.” Indeed, one pundit wrote that the exit polls could not explain why Obama was elected nor could the national state of affairs—although he cheerfully proceeded to make other explanations for this anomaly. [16] Personally I have seen at least 23 different explanations as to why Obama won—many of which are factors for the GOP to consider going forward, but none of which are actually telling the present story in real time.

In the aftermath of this apparently colossal loss the Republicans found themselves bickering, finger-pointing, trying to reconcile what happened and wondering why God had deserted them. The problem was that they did not have all the data…and possibly never will. There were those with strong suspicions that mischief was afoot who implied they would leave no stone unturned in efforts to invalidate this election and prevent Obama from actually taking office in January. Romney has even been asked to rescind his concession. However, the deck is stacked at least as much afterwards as it was prior to the election. The fact is there will never be another fair presidential election in this nation until an absolute audit trail that matches votes cast with the actual registered voters is put in place.

Mr. President, I was one of the four million Republicans that didn’t vote last time, but I can assure you most of us turned out this time along with and beside our more loyal and consistent GOP voters. Our party was undeniably energized and we did indeed cast our votes. So now we are wondering where they went? Like you pointedly asserted before the election, the math just doesn’t add up!