American Presidential Election Corruption

thiarfearr

Apologies for the wall of text, basic gist of the article is that in 2004, there were some late counting abnormalities which ended up with the vote swinging from Kerry to Bush. This site says anonymous claims to have stopped a similar attempt to swing the vote for Romney this time around, with similar patterns to 2004 showing up, and Karl Roves odd behaviour. Thoughts?

At around 11:25 pm EST on election night, Karl Rove knew something had gone terribly wrong.
Minutes earlier, Fox News called the key battleground state of Ohio for President Obama, sealing his re-election. But as the network took live shots of jubilant Obama supporters celebrating their victory camped outside the Obama re-election headquarters in Chicago, Karl Rove began building a case against the call his employer network had just made.
Rove explained that when Fox called Ohio, only 74% of the vote was in showing President Obama with a lead of roughly 30,000 votes. But, as Rove contended, with 77% reporting according to the Ohio Secretary of State office, the President’s lead had been slashed to just 991 votes.
“We gotta be careful about calling the thing,” Rove said, “I’d be very cautious about intruding in on this process.”
Rove was supremely confident that the numbers coming in from Ohio throughout the night that favored President Obama weren’t indicative of who would win Ohio when all the votes were ultimately tabulated by the state's computers. With a quarter of the vote still out there, Rove was anticipating a shift to the Right just after 11 pm, which, coincidentally, is exactly what happened in 2004.
That year, John Kerry and the entire nation were watching Ohio just after the 11pm hour. Florida had just been called for George W. Bush and according to the Electoral College math whoever won Ohio would win the election. And considering that exit polls from the state showed John Kerry with a substantial lead, there were a lot of tense moments for Karl Rove and the Republicans that night.
Then the clock struck 11:14pm, and the servers counting the votes in Ohio crashed. Election officials had planned for this sort of thing to happen and already contracted with a company in Chattanooga, Tennessee called SMARTech to be the failsafe should the servers in Ohio go down.
As journalist Craig Unger lays bare in his book, Boss Rove, SMARTech was drenched in Republican politics. One of the early founders of the company was Mercer Reynolds who used to the finance chairman of the Republican Party. SMARTech’s top client was none other than the Bush-Cheney campaign itself and SMARTech also did work for Jeb Bush and the Republican National Committee. And it was Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who ensured that SMARTech received the contract to count votes on election night should the servers go down, which they did at exactly 11:14pm.
Sixty long seconds later the servers came back up in Ohio, but now with vote rerouted through SMARTech in Chattanooga. And, coincidentally, Bush’s prospects for re-election were suddenly a lot brighter. The vote totals that poured into the system from SmartTECH's computer in Chattanooga were flipping the exit polls on their head. The lead Kerry had in the exit polls had magically reversed by more than 6%, something unheard of in any other nation in the developed world, giving Bush the win in Ohio and the presidency for another four years.
Unger further explains in his book that the only independent analysis of what happened in Ohio was done by Richard Hayes Phillips and published in the book, Witness to a Crime. Phillips and his team analyzed more than 120,000 ballots, 127 polls books, and 141 signature books from Ohio’s 2004 election.
Phillips found zero irregularities in vote totals from all the counties that reported results before the servers crashed at 11:14pm. But of the fourteen counties that came in after the crash connected Ohio's election computers to SmartTECH's computers in Chattanooga, every single one of them showed voter irregularities - that all favored George W. Bush.
For example, consider Cleveland’s Fourth Ward. In 2000, Al Gore won 95% of that ward's vote. But in 2004, the county reported its results after the 11:14 pm crash, and it showed that Kerry had only won 59% of the vote – a 35% drop without any explanation. There were several other abnormalities across Ohio’s post-server crash that delivered the state to Bush.
John Kerry never protested the election and to this day, these 2004 voter abnormalities have never been addressed.
So the question is: on election night this year, when Karl Rove was protesting the call his network had just made in Ohio, was Rove anticipating a wave of unpredicted vote totals to swing the election back to Mitt Romney after a statewide server crash, just as had happened in 2004?
Perhaps. He did make the point that the race was about to drastically narrow according to the Secretary of State’s office. And as The Free Press reports, a number of odd similarities with 2004 began occurring in Ohio this year just after the 11pm hour once again:
“Curiously, the Ohio Secretary of State’s vote tabulation website went down at 11:13pm, as reported by Free Press election protection website monitors, and mentioned by Rove on the news. This was one minute earlier than the time on election night 2004 -- when Ohio votes were outsourced to Chattanooga, Tennessee -- and then the vote flipped for Bush…This time, the Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) vote tabulation site went down as on election night as well. In his rant on Fox, Rove argued that Fox News should not confirm Ohio for Obama until votes came in from the southwest Ohio GOP strongholds of Delaware, Butler and Warren counties and suburban Cincinnati. It was after the crash of the secretary of state’s site in 2004 that improbable vote totals came in from Republican counties in southwest Ohio – particularly Butler, Clermont, and Warren counties. These three counties provided more than Bush’s entire Ohio victory margin of 119,000.”
Only this time, when the servers came back up, the votes never flipped. President Obama’s lead held and he went on to win, while Karl Rove - and Mitt Romney - watched in slack-jawed amazement.
We know there was a parade of Conservative talking heads in the days before the election predicting a landslide victory for Mitt Romney. Is it because they lived in a bubble, lacking pollster Nate Silver’s facts and arithmetic that actually showed the President winning in a landslide? Could it be that Rove’s election night freak-out was just a result of this same Election Day ignorance held by all Republicans? Or was Rove genuinely shocked by what he was seeing because he knew the fix was in, just like in 2004, and there was no way President Obama was going to win re-election?
And if that’s the case, why did the plan to steal the election not work?
Here’s where the story gets really interesting.
Just a few weeks before Election Day, the hacktivist group Anonymous issued a video statement against Karl Rove. Anonymous is notorious for numerous cyber actions against the Justice Department, the Pentagon, the Recording Industry of America, the Motion Picture Association of America, and even the Church of Scientology.
In the video released prior to Election Day, Anonymous warns Karl Rove that he’s being watched. “We know that you will attempt to attempt to rig the election of Mitt Romney to your favor,” a black-robed figure in a Guy Fawkes mask says in the video. “We will watch as your merry band of conspirators try to achieve this overthrow of the United States government.”
The figure then warns Rove that Anonymous is “watching and monitoring all your servers,” and goes on to say, “We want you to know that we are watching you, waiting for you to make this mistake of thinking you can rig this election to your favor…If we catch you we will turn over all of this data to the appropriate officials in the hopes that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Then, just two days after Election Day, as the Republican Party was in full-blown despair and Karl Rove was trying to figure out what went wrong, Anonymous released a press statement claiming it did indeed prevent an attempt by Rove to steal the election for Mitt Romney.
The statement reads, “We began following the digital traffic of one Karl Rove…After a rather short time, we identified the digital structure of Karl’s operation and even that of his ORCA. This was an easy task in that barn doors were left open and the wind swept us inside.”The “ORCA” that Anonymous is referring to in the press release is a massive, high-tech get-out-the-vote system created by the Romney campaign this year that will keep tabs on potential voters and coordinate with operatives to target who has and hasn’t voted yet on Election Day.
Romney’s Communications Director Gail Gitcho bragged about how sophisticated ORCA is saying, “At 5 o’clock when the exit polls come out, we won’t pay attention to that. We will have had much more scientific information based on the political operation we have set up.” In other words, ORCA will know who won Ohio better than any exit polls.
But, according to Anonymous, ORCA had nothing to do with getting out the vote and everything to do with rigging the vote.
“We coded and created, what we call The Great Oz. A targeted password protected firewall that we tested and refined over the past weeks. We placed this code on more than one of the digital tunnels and their destination that Karl's not so smart worker bees planned to use on election night.”
Anonymous alleges these “digital tunnels” were leading to servers in three different states. The release goes on to detail what happened on election night as Rove’s operatives attempted to access these tunnels. “We watched as Karl's weak corrupters repeatedly tried to penetrate The Great Oz. These children of his were at a loss-how many times and how many passwords did they try-exactly 105.”
“Karl’s speared ORCA whale was breached, rotting with a strong stench across his playground, unable to be resuscitated,” claims Anonymous.
So might this have really been the reason for Karl Rove’s shock on election night? Under the guise of sophisticated get out the vote operation, had Rove and the Republican Party actually built up a massive system to steal the Ohio election, just like in 2004, only to have it thwarted at the last minute by a group of computer hackers?
If this is true, then the implications are enormous and could take down the entire Republican Party and finally wake Americans up to the fact that our privatized vote system is shockingly flawed and insecure.
In their press release, Anonymous concludes, “We have a warning for Karl – sail again at your own peril. We may just put all the evidence into a tidy little package and give it to a painfully bored nemesis hanging out in a certain embassy in London.”
In an era of internet lulz and digital false flags, we must demand proof for these sort of claims made by Anonymous. But given Karl Rove’s history with elections in Ohio and the known vulnerabilities with our corporate owned electronic voting machines, there may be both smoke and fire with these election night allegations.
That’s why it’s vitally important for Anonymous to release any information or evidence it has about this plot to not just Julian Assange, but to law enforcement authorities as well. Otherwise, the alleged democracy-saving actions of the hacktivist group will instead be regarded as useless internet antics, relegated to the dustbins of history.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12845-anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix

stuar

thiarfearr wrote: »

Apologies for the wall of text, basic gist of the article is that in 2004, there were some late counting abnormalities which ended up with the vote swinging from Kerry to Bush. This site says anonymous claims to have stopped a similar attempt to swing the vote for Romney this time around, with similar patterns to 2004 showing up, and Karl Roves odd behaviour. Thoughts?


http://truth-out.org/news/item/12845-anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix

What's the spoiler?

Anyway your right it is a wall of text, very hard on the eye's, in 2004 Skull and Bones won regardless.

What are your thought's on it all, maybe anonymous did prevent vote rigging, wouldn't surprise me in the least, maybe your playing games in the CT forum considering you edited because "spoilers work different here", spoilers here can be seen by highlighting them, I'm suspicious why you'd need a wall of text and a spoiler, waste people's time perhaps?

The Bishop!

The 2000 election was stolen. The 2004 election was also stolen. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Republicans had tried their best to steal 2012.

thiarfearr

stuar wrote: »

What's the spoiler?

Anyway your right it is a wall of text, very hard on the eye's, in 2004 Skull and Bones won regardless.

What are your thought's on it all, maybe anonymous did prevent vote rigging, wouldn't surprise me in the least, maybe your playing games in the CT forum considering you edited because "spoilers work different here", spoilers here can be seen by highlighting them, I'm suspicious why you'd need a wall of text and a spoiler, waste people's time perhaps?

In most forums, when you put in spoiler tags, it creates a little button where you can open out the text box. Here it just covers all the text in black, I didn't realise that until after I posted.

And I posted a link to the story, which is formatted better.

Torakx

I suspect the group Anonymous may have (or not) started out as legit.But i think is more a propoganda tool now, to allow more security measures for the internet.

When Anonymous start hacking places and getting out info on NWO plans and Bilderberg info etc etc i would reconsider my view of them.

Its possible they have already and i just didnt know.
But so far the feeling ive gotten from them and wiki leaks is that they do enough to appear troublesome, but not enough to actually help where its needed.

So.... when you post a story saying the group i already suspect of being gov linked, helped prevent voting fraud i get much more suspicious.

To me that says they saved an election that was a farce no matter who won and got hero points in the process.

A real group representing the people as it were i would imagine has much different targets.
Maybe pedophiles in governments around the world as an example.
Why help with their elections when half of them probalby should be behind bars for various illegal and unlawfull activities.


Last figures i heard bandied around by the way, was that 30,000 children dissapear in the uk every single year.
Thats alot of innocent lives ruined each year.Might not all be kidnappings but even a percentage of that is too much.
What im hearing going on with MP's and other powerfull/famous people, not much else could suprise me relating to child kidnappings.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Last figures i heard bandied around by the way, was that 30,000 children dissapear in the uk every single year.
Thats alot of innocent lives ruined each year.Might not all be kidnappings but even a percentage of that is too much.
What im hearing going on with MP's and other powerfull/famous people, not much else could suprise me relating to child kidnappings.

It's far higher than that, over 200,000 reported missing a year. However the number of children who stay missing are usually in single digit figures.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

When Anonymous start hacking places and getting out info on NWO plans and Bilderberg info etc etc i would reconsider my view of them.

Unfortunately, your test for whether or not they are trustworthy begs the question as to whether this NWO conspiracy exists. In other words, they can't really pass this test if the NWO doesn't exist in some organised, centralised and hackable form (like SMERSH from the old James Bond films or something).

I think this is quite an interesting CT and it merits serious scrutiny from the MSM, even if there are a few assumptions and unsupported claims in the quoted text.

hooradiation

ORCA was the answer to Democrats GOTV

It was, by all accounts, an unmitigated [URL="
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/08/Orca-How-the-Romney-Campaign-Suppressed-Its-Own-Vote"]clusterfuck[/URL] of a system.

The idea that it was there to "steal the vote" is also fairly suspect, given how the app works.

Jonny7

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Unfortunately, your test for whether or not they are trustworthy begs the question as to whether this NWO conspiracy exists. In other words, they can't really pass this test if the NWO doesn't exist in some organised, centralised and hackable form (like SMERSH from the old James Bond films or something).

I think this is quite an interesting CT and it merits serious scrutiny from the MSM, even if there are a few assumptions and unsupported claims in the quoted text.

Well this thread contradicts the NWO theory for a start.

Torakx

Well im sure the guys in Anonymous know how to use google.The NWO "theory" is well founded now i believe.
And surely by now also they have seen the hoax videos on youtube trying to defame them or corrupt their cause.

For the moment its looking to me like they are not a serious group and most likely headed by some gov agency.

Honestly why would they help with the elections, but neglect all the important issues in that political playground?

To me its because either they are just teens with good hacking methods or they are a front for something i would call sinister.

Because they are knee deep in politics i would doubt they are headed just by teenagers.


Taken from the linked article in the op.

Just a few weeks before Election Day, the hacktivist group Anonymous issued a video statement against Karl Rove.

Anonymous is notorious for numerous cyber actions against the Justice Department, the Pentagon, the Recording Industry of America, the Motion Picture Association of America, and even the Church of Scientology.

In the video released prior to Election Day, Anonymous warns Karl Rove that he’s being watched. “We know that you will attempt to attempt to rig the election of Mitt Romney to your favor,” a black-robed figure in a Guy Fawkes mask says in the video. “We will watch as your merry band of conspirators try to achieve this overthrow of the United States government.”

The figure then warns Rove that Anonymous is “watching and monitoring all your servers,” and goes on to say, “We want you to know that we are watching you, waiting for you to make this mistake of thinking you can rig this election to your favor…If we catch you we will turn over all of this data to the appropriate officials in the hopes that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

The NWO "theory" is well founded now i believe.

What is the exact theory? because details differ drastically from version to version.

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well this thread contradicts the NWO theory for a start.

Im guessing you mean the fact the elections would need to be rigged by one side, shows they are really opposed right?

If so i dont think that is enough to sway me at all.
To me thats just a soap opera.
Anything at all to distract from the fact that there seems to be only two people up for election according to the media.
I checked online and there were 417 candidates in 2011 for american president.
Strangely i only heard of two people running each time.
One left side and one right side politically.

My conclusion is that private groups with alot of advertising money are funding these candidates on their own media controlled channels to only give the general uneducated voter the choice of bad guy number 1 or bad guy number 2.

So to me if there was a real activist group,they would have attempted to destroy the mainstream media.
First by exposing the ceo's and background financial supporters of propoganda and then by actually taking them off the air if possible lol

Anyway thats not going to happen im sure or anything as effective as that.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Im guessing you mean the fact the elections would need to be rigged by one side, shows they are really opposed right?

If so i dont think that is enough to sway me at all.
To me thats just a soap opera.
Anything at all to distract from the fact that there seems to be only two people up for election according to the media.
I checked online and there were 417 candidates in 2011 for american president.
Strangely i only heard of two people running each time.
One left side and one right side politically.

My conclusion is that private groups with alot of advertising money are funding these candidates on their own media controlled channels to only give the general uneducated voter the choice of bad guy number 1 or bad guy number 2.

So to me if there was a real activist group,they would have attempted to destroy the mainstream media.
First by exposing the ceo's and background financial supporters of propoganda and then by actually taking them off the air if possible lol

Anyway thats not going to happen im sure or anything as effective as that.

It's essentially a two party system. In the UK it's a three party system, although you can vote for UKIP, BNP or the monster raving looney mad party. In Belgium it's a multi-party system and they didn't have a government for over a year.

Torakx

Unfortunately the elections today are for the most part media driven.
Which to me is a flawed system right there when the media is out of control.
If only two parties are allowed and they are compromised you have lost control of your country/state/continent as a voter.
Anything influencing the voters that much is a serious danger.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Which to me is a flawed system right there when the media is out of control.

You suggest controlling the media?

Torakx

I just said the media was out of control.
In the sense that they are paid to advertise certain political figures over others.
It becomes a game of propoganda and acting when it should be about policy that will be implemented.

Its not just the media.
I would put alot of blame on the lack of conditions set out for presidents and co.

In the end the whole system becomes useless to the voters,when big corporations are influencing public policy with profits, to make more profits.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

I just said the media was out of control.
In the sense that they are paid to advertise certain political figures over others.
It becomes a game of propoganda and acting when it should be about policy that will be implemented.

Media is a broad term, which media exactly?

I seem to remember alternative outlets and foreign press focusing on the main candidates, like pretty much all other elections.

Torakx

Yep i totally agree.
I mean the media overall.Billboards ,posters,radio tv etc etc
Advertising is too powerfull to just allow a select few access to it.

When it comes to politics and voting i feel all candidates should be on a level playing ground.
One idea ive had for years now is that all candidates should get free airtime to advertise, at request of the government to make sure candidates all have the same exposure.

But this kind of attitude does not make it easier to corrupt the voting system i think.
So i will probably be saying all through my life that voting is a waste and I might never see real democracy in my lifetime.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

But this kind of attitude does not make it easier to corrupt the voting system i think.
So i will probably be saying all through my life that voting is a waste and I might never see real democracy in my lifetime.

What about France?

Campaign finance is strictly regulated. All forms of paid commercial advertisements through the press or by any audiovisual means are prohibited during the three months preceding the election. Instead, political advertisements are aired free of charge on an equal basis for all of the candidates on national television channels and radio stations during the official campaign. Campaign donations and expenditures are capped. Candidates must appoint an independent financial representative to handle all their financial matters relating to the election. Campaign accounts are audited by a special commission. Candidates whose campaign accounts are certified may be reimbursed up to 50 percent of their expenses by the state if they meet certain conditions.

hooradiation

Torakx wrote: »

So i will probably be saying all through my life that voting is a waste and I might never see real democracy in my lifetime.

Well, that goes without saying.
Self fulfilling prophecies are the definition of a sure bet.

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

What about France?

Campaign finance is strictly regulated. All forms of paid commercial advertisements through the press or by any audiovisual means are prohibited during the three months preceding the election. Instead, political advertisements are aired free of charge on an equal basis for all of the candidates on national television channels and radio stations during the official campaign. Campaign donations and expenditures are capped. Candidates must appoint an independent financial representative to handle all their financial matters relating to the election. Campaign accounts are audited by a special commission. Candidates whose campaign accounts are certified may be reimbursed up to 50 percent of their expenses by the state if they meet certain conditions.

Nice!
Thats a good start.
I wonder how the rankings work down through the levels of departments and councils for smaller areas within france.
Also very curious to see if or how much corruption is going on in politics there.
Always gaps that get exploited.But i like the setup regarding their media.

thiarfearr

Speaking of the media, that reminds me of what Brendan Keenan said after the Irish Presedential election:

'The winner of this election has been the media, the media won. We journalists picked people up as candidates, slapped them around for a few days like a schoolboy with a fly or an insect, and then when we got tired of them, we put them down and moved on and did the same thing to the next candidate. And I would think, this is the way it should be'

Where they didn't go after Michael D at all, but maybe that deserves its own thread

Run_to_da_hills

Russian Newspaper: Obama Was Re-Elected by “Illiterate Society”

Russian newspaper Pravda is blaming President Obama’s re-election on an “illiterate society” who voted for him

This lady sums things up pretty well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/26/russian_newspaper_obama_was_reelected_by_illiterate_society

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Russian Newspaper: Obama Was Re-Elected by “Illiterate Society”

Russian newspaper Pravda is blaming President Obama’s re-election on an “illiterate society” who voted for him

This lady sums things up pretty well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/26/russian_newspaper_obama_was_reelected_by_illiterate_society

Ah, the bastion of democracy, free speech and untarnished elections that is Russia.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Russian Newspaper: Obama Was Re-Elected by “Illiterate Society”

Russian newspaper Pravda is blaming President Obama’s re-election on an “illiterate society” who voted for him

This lady sums things up pretty well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/26/russian_newspaper_obama_was_reelected_by_illiterate_society

You can find people like that in either camp in the states. Or in any country in the world for that matter.

Doesn't really show anything.
Aside from an existing bias towards believing a certain narrative.

Monty Burnz

Yes, there's zero chance of some illiterate moron from the Bible-Belt voting for the Republicans for some equally idiotic reason ('stopping communism' or some such).

Torakx

Some people have been deprived of education for so long and to an extent that they cannot use reason or logic to decide on their vote or to understand it doesnt matter in the long run.

Obama gave them a phone, and after decades of abuse they are delighted somebody "cares".

I do also side with Monty's comment in that religions have played an equal part in ruining society.

Run_to_da_hills

A forensic profiler whose previous cases have included the Natalie Holloway disappearance and the O.J. Simpson double murder says Barack Obama is confessing to stealing the 2012 president election.

“Obama appears to unconsciously confess on multiple occasions that in his secret fury he stole the 2012 presidential election – continuing his attacks on our nation,” Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., told WND in an assessment of Obama.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/forensic-profiler-obama-confessing-election-fraud/

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A forensic profiler whose previous cases have included the Natalie Holloway disappearance and the O.J. Simpson double murder says Barack Obama is confessing to stealing the 2012 president election.

“Obama appears to unconsciously confess on multiple occasions that in his secret fury he stole the 2012 presidential election – continuing his attacks on our nation,” Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., told WND in an assessment of Obama.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/forensic-profiler-obama-confessing-election-fraud/

I'm guessing he's a Tea Party/birther/truther nutjob.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A forensic profiler whose previous cases have included the Natalie Holloway disappearance and the O.J. Simpson double murder says Barack Obama is confessing to stealing the 2012 president election.

“Obama appears to unconsciously confess on multiple occasions that in his secret fury he stole the 2012 presidential election – continuing his attacks on our nation,” Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., told WND in an assessment of Obama.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/forensic-profiler-obama-confessing-election-fraud/

Let me guess, he's not the slightest bit partisan and isn't selling books on the subject?

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A forensic profiler whose previous cases have included the Natalie Holloway disappearance and the O.J. Simpson double murder says Barack Obama is confessing to stealing the 2012 president election.

“Obama appears to unconsciously confess on multiple occasions that in his secret fury he stole the 2012 presidential election – continuing his attacks on our nation,” Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., told WND in an assessment of Obama.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/forensic-profiler-obama-confessing-election-fraud/

I'm guessing he's a Tea Party/birther/truther nutjob.

Edit: A 1 minute background check that is apparently beyond the likes of WND and other conspiracist clowns finds that this guy did NOT work on the OJ Simpson case - he wrote something about the case afterwards that was published in a magazine. This would be like Brown Bomber claiming that he worked on the 9/11 case on the basis that he has written about them here.

Monty Burnz

Here's more of the same muppet going on about how Obama is seeking revenge on America, and how he wants to impose his socialist agenda yadda yadda. I'm just wondering what else will turn up about this clown.

He continued, “Obama has made plain between-the-lines all the way from the beginning of his presidency up to the present day in his recent U.N. speech and presidential debates, he hates America. Obama doesn’t just want to spread the wealth around, he wants to destroy us economically and otherwise.”

“Obama’s ‘revenge’ comment was one pithy reminder that unconsciously he remains far angrier than anyone imagines including his own conscious mind. It was one final confession that out of his deep personal wounds and misguided anger he has attacked America’s core foundations as much as he could possibly get away with. Brilliantly his super-intel chose a one word description summing up his presidency, ‘Revenge.’ It describes his multiple attacks on America, informing us that we are looking at the tip of the iceberg of Obama’s mind,” Hodges explained.

Monty Burnz

Go back a little further and it turns out he claims that Obama is confessing he's ineligible... (so I was right about him being a birther)

Hodges concludes that the remarks by Obama at the U.N. reveal truths similar to those he perceived in Obama’s inaugural address.

“Deep down a guilty person cannot stop looking at his misdeed, his crime. Obama’s brilliant unconscious constantly comprehends his guilt and is incessantly moved to confess. Remember, the deeper mind speaks symbolically in a narrative language using key images. It is much like reading a parable,” he said.

“The first thing Obama does in his U.N. address is make reference to his foreign birth – exactly as he did in his 2009 Inauguration Day speech when his opening sentence introduced the word ‘borne’ and thus the question, ‘Where was I born?’” Hodges concludes.

“At the U.N., Obama begins to tell ‘about an American named … who was born in a town called … He came to love … the people of Africa … and he would carry that commitment throughout his life.

“His super intelligence, his deeper unconscious is actually saying, ‘I’m going to tell you the secret story of my supposed American birth – I was really born in Africa to which I have a lifelong commitment.’ His story pictures a foreigner traveling between America and Africa – matching an identical idea in his inaugural address,” the author explains.

“Next Obama unconsciously confesses his illegal presidency was a secret revolution against America. Obama instantly provides a second crucial birth marker linking ‘birth’ to ‘revolution,’” Hodges said.

This genius has discovered a technique whereby you can look at what someone says and see 'clues' that 'prove' whatever you already believe. Marvellous.