The 2012 Election Was a Fraud

from top to bottom 

by Miles Mathis

It was virtual. It was manufactured. It never happened. All the numbers were fake, cooked up in some backroom by guys smoking cigars and by professional computer hackers.

How do I know this? Because I have studied the evidence. Fact 1: They stole the primaries, and if they can steal the primaries they can steal the general election in the same way. In about a dozen states that had both caucuses and primaries, it was found that the caucus votes weren't even close to the primary votes. The discrepancy wasn't a few percentage points, it was up to 65 percentage points. The primary votes were done on computers, most with no paper trail. The caucus votes were done by hand, in person. In the primary votes, Ron Paul lost every time, usually by a margin of something like 3 to 1, and sometimes by a margin of 5 to 1 or more. A month or two later, in caucuses, Ron Paul won, again by very large margins. In several states (see Maine and Louisiana and Minnesota, for instance), he got 74-88% of the vote. That by itself is proof that the primary votes were stolen, by very large margins. Since not all states had both primaries and caucuses, we cannot say for sure that all states were stolen. But the logical assumption is that if we have proof that a dozen states were stolen, the rest were stolen as well. Fact 2: At the Republican National Convention, most of the six states (Maine4, Iowa 2, Minnesota1, Louisiana5, Nevada3, and Colorado6) that had gone to Ron Paul were seated at the back of the second balconies, as far away as possible, and not together. It was never admitted that Ron Paul had actually won the six states he won. Rules were broken † to be sure he didn't speak and that he couldn't be nominated. And, for all intents and purposes, entire state delegations were disenfranchised, all on national TV. The Republican governor of Maine boycotted the convention, due to the fact that the GOP had refused to seat delegates legally elected in his state, simply because they had gone to Paul. Fact 3: a large majority of Ron Paul voters considered themselves libertarians, hated Romney, and stated for the record that they would never vote for him under any circumstances.** Being disenfranchised via vote fraud, beatings, lying reporters, and a corrupt national convention most likely did not change their minds on this. Therefore, we may assume that a large percentage of voters (maybe even a majority) who had voted Red in the primaries did not vote for Romney in the general election.

So, let's do the math. We are told that there are 86 million registered Democrats, 55 million Republicans, and 28 million registered Other. To simplify the problem, we will say that all voters decide to vote either Red or Blue. Less than 2% are said to have voted third party yesterday, so we will leave that out of the equation. Let's be cautious or generous, giving 2/3rds of the Other vote to the Republicans and only 1/3rd to the Democrats. We do that to represent general dissatisfaction with the incumbent. That gives us 95 million Democrat, 74 million Republican. That makes the Republican percentage of registered voters 44% of all registered voters. If 44% of the country is Republican, and 50% of those who voted Red in the primaries refused to vote for Romney in the general election, then Romney could expect—at best—22% of the total vote. But that is probably still overestimating Romney's support. A certain percentage of Ron Paul voters would have voted for Obama, which would have taken Obama's percentage up. If we give Obama another 5%, then that changes our percentages like this: the Republican percentage drops to 39%, and we take half of that, which is 19.5%. And, since Gary Johnson was the Republican governor of New Mexico, we may assume Johnson took more votes from Romney than Obama. That takes another percent or two away from Romney. If we add up everything, Romney would have been lucky to get 20% of the general vote. And yet we are being told he got 48% of the popular vote. Since that is mathematically impossible, we may assume it isn't true. You can't get 57.6 million votes from 20 million Romney voters, unless each one votes two or three times (or unless each one is a software engineer).

I will be told that Ron Paul voters came around and voted for Romney. There is no evidence for that and a lot of evidence against it, but even if we give Romney all the Paul voters, we can't get his total up to 48%. As I just showed you, only 33% of registered voters are registered Republican. The Republicans can't mathematically win a popular vote, and they know that. They can win the Presidency only by winning the right states and thereby winning the electoral count. That what happened in 2000, remember, when Bush lost the popular vote by 544,000 votes, but won 271 electoral votes. Even Bush didn't get 48% of the popular vote. He got 47.9%. But we are supposed to believe Romney got 48% of the popular vote, in a year when he disenfranchised tens of millions of Ron Paul voters, stole a large number of primaries, and rigged the national convention? Romney even had to refuse to seat 17 duly elected delegates from his own state of Massachusetts, because they wouldn't sign an affidavit promising to vote for him in Tampa.

More evidence comes from looking at Republican numbers in other races, both national and state races. Democrats just won extremely rare super majorities in both California and Illinois, and now have over 67% of the votes there. They also won a super majority in the New York state assembly. Those states include the first, second and third largest cities in the US. This is the first time democrats have had a super majority in California since 1883. Do you think Romney won 48% when local Republicans were winning less than 33%? Or we can look at the national Congress.In the Senate, the Republicans lost 25 of 33 seats, which means Democrats won 75.8% of the seats up for election. In the House, democrats won 29 of 45 new seats, which is a 64.4% win. That means House Republicans got 35.6% and Senate Republicans got 24.2%. Do you still think Romney got 48%? At the national level, the Republican party is dead in the water, and it only survives in some red states where the local vote can be bought or stolen more easily. In other words, the fatcats rigging the vote at the national level don't even both rigging the local vote in places like Kansas, as long as local riggers keep their hand off the national numbers.

Here's another problem. We are told there are about 169 million registered voters in the US. We have also been told that about 60 million registered voters wouldn't bother to vote in this election. And yet it was reported that over 120 million votes were cast for President yesterday. See a problem there? That is a 71% turnout. You have been living in the same country as me: do you think this election generated enough excitement to bring 71% of registered voters to the polls? If you tend to think so, add this to your equation: considering all the effort at voter suppression, do you think it is likely that 71% of registered voters could find the time or polling place to vote, even if they wanted to? Remember, this is the election where voters in several major east coast states didn't even have power. The polling places were wiped out completely or were dark. In New Jersey, voters were told they could vote with an affidavit. How many voters even know what that is? As Woody Allen once said, they probably think that is a Jewish wine. Even in New York City, which had power, there were 60 fewer polling sites than in 2008. But Sandy wasn't the only cause of fewer votes. In Florida, which wasn't hit by Sandy, the Republican governor and his minions were suppressing the vote again, with six hour lines reported in many places. Despite this, governor Rick Scott refused to extend voting hours (as had been done in 2008). These are just a couple of examples of voter suppression, either intended or unintended, and there are many more. These things don't tend to cause a large turnout, as you might imagine.

Although some outlets were predicting huge voter turnouts, this turned out to be false like everything else. After the election the AP admitted that voter turnout was way down, compared not only to 2008 but even to 2004. It was down by 15% in New York, 12% in New Jersey, and 11% in Texas (where no hurricane hit). So, as usual, you are sold both scenarios. You are told the voter turnout is both "huge" and "way down." Depending on what storyline they are promoting that minute, you will be expected to believe both. Your brain is being stirred on purpose, so that it no longer expects things to make sense or be consistent.

I would suggest to you that these high voting totals—when we would expect low—are signs of the computer. The two parties both act to suppress the real vote, and then inflate the fake vote with their hacked computers. They don't want real voters—who they can't control. They want virtual voters who they can. More evidence of this is at Wikipedia. Go to the page on voter turnout in Presidential elections, and you will see that turnout hit a low of 49% in 1996. It rose a bit in 2,000, and then rose a lot in 2004 and 2008. You should find that curious. As you look back, do you think the Bush/Kerry election generated that much excitement? Maybe among a few diehards, but it is doubtful that those who had decided it wasn't worth voting in 1996 changed their minds by 2004. Had the country turned around, becoming less corrupt, giving voters a reason to think they were now powerful? No. Just the opposite. We should expect to see ever-increasing levels of voter apathy and disempowerment. We should have seen the turnout continue to drop after 1996, not rise.

Notice that the rise in turnout after 2000 matches the rise of the computer voting machine. It was after the Florida debacle in 2000 that machines began to be installed all over the country, supposedly as an answer to the hanging chads problem. Amazingly, at the same time the voter numbers supposedly began to rise, after falling steadily since 1952. Coincidence?

If you want more evidence, we can look at the way the race was called yesterday. If you followed the state totals like I did, you will have noticed that Ohio was one of the last states they called for Obama before giving him the election. The curious thing there is that less than 73% of the votes in Ohio had been tallied at that time, and it was even closer than Florida then—which still wasn't called Wednesday night. When they called Ohio, it was still 49-49, with only 911 votes* separating the two candidates, out of 4.4 million votes cast so far (as Karl Rove himself pointed out on FOXnews). How did they know how the other 27% would vote? If you say exit polling, you haven't been paying attention. The mainstream has been discrediting exit polling since 2000. They no longer like exit polling, since they found it showed up their steals. That is what happened in 2000 and 2004, remember? Exit polls conflicted with vote totals, so rather than question the vote totals, they stopped doing exit polling. They have started doing exit polling again, but it is a new finessed exit polling that they can manipulate, so that it doesn't conflict with their vote pushes.

The reason they were able to call Ohio despite it basically being a dead-heat is that the numbers were manipulated from the beginning. A lot of people voted, yes, but those totals aren't the totals you got in any state. What you saw on TV or the internet were agreed-to totals, numbers that had been ironed out beforehand. They wanted the race to be close, so they simply manufactured close races in some states like Ohio and Florida, to make the game look interesting. Having Romney get less than 20% nationwide wouldn't look good for the Republican party, since it would tarnish the party's future. Likewise for extremely low voter turnout. That doesn't look good, and undermines the propaganda. What the controllers want is to suppress the real vote, but inflate the fake vote. That way they get their cake and eat it too. They have fewer real people getting in their way, but more fake people making it look like voters still buy into the system. They need you to think that your neighbors are taking all this seriously. They need you to think that your neighbors are big supporters of Romney or Obama, that your neighbors believe what they see on TV, and that your neighbors are part of the two-party system. None on that is true, but if you think it is true, it is as good as true.

For more evidence, we can go to individual precincts in Ohio, which have recently been reported on by Michael Snyder. In over a hundred urban precincts in and around Cleveland, Obama received more than 99% of the vote, with Romney receiving 0, 1, or 2 votes per precinct. This the same place voters have reported machines flipping their votes from Romney to Obama. These totals from Ohio are clear evidence that the machines are voting, not the people.

Since the vote was completely manufactured from the ground up, we may assume that third party candidates like Gary Johnson also did much better than we are told. Now that the two parties are in control of the machines, they can just decide beforehand how many votes they want the other candidates to get, and then write that into the software. I assume they give candidates like Johnson 1 or 2%, to make it look real, but no more than that. They can't give them 5%, because that would give them matching funds and put them in the debates, so you will never see that. They don't want real candidates in the debates, since they might not stick to the script.

The same goes for down-ticket stuff like California's proposition 37, which I assume was just stolen like everything else. The clue here was that the early totals went heavily against GMO labeling, but the late totals went heavily for labeling. That is a clue because you don't have to count the machine votes — they are pre-counted by the machines. They come in early because they are hacked. They are just made up by software engineers, so they are the first to arrive at state headquarters. When I first started watching the totals come in for prop. 37, "no" was leading by 58 to 42. That was with about 16% reporting (9pm PT). I knew things were already finished at that point, because leads like that are (normally) insurmountable, but I continued to watch for hours, out of some strange sense of duty, I guess. And a very strange thing happened. The numbers began to change, and they changed in the same direction all night. By 25% reporting the "for" vote had climbed to 43%. By 30% reporting, it had risen to 44%. By 50% reporting, it had risen to 45%. I found that astonishing, because it shouldn't be happening that way. None of the other numbers in California were changing like that. That kind of quick movement doesn't happen in such a large vote pool, which is precisely why they can call elections before all the votes come in—provided they have a 16 point initial spread like that (58 to 42 is 16). I thought, "What's happening? Is the state Democratic party stealing this one back in the middle of the night?" The Dems control California right now, and they endorsed "yes" on Prop. 37. But that wasn't what was happening. The rise stalled at about 47%. It rose from 42 to 47 and then the totals hit 100%. What happened is that more real votes came in late. They were late because they had to be counted. Real votes take longer to process than fake votes. But those who stole the election had given themselves enough padding. They had stolen it enough that a 5% late change couldn't reverse their steal (see below for update).

If you study the numbers from California, you see another thing that is interesting about Prop. 37. Monsanto stole the vote much more openly in rural districts than in urban. The big cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco voted for the Proposition, as did most of the coastal towns, which is what kept the vote close at the end. The Proposition was defeated by the large margins in the smaller towns away from the coast, where it failed by at least 60/40. You will say this is because farmers don't want to have to reveal their secrets, but very few people even in the rural areas are actually crop farmers. No, the reason for the rural steal is that it is far easier to steal votes in smaller communities. People are less politically savvy there, there is less oversight, there are fewer attorneys, and—because the fewer votes come from there—there is less of a spotlight. Back in the 1940's, the mob bosses used to steal mainly in the bigger cities, since that is where the mob bosses were stationed. But that isn't the method of operation anymore. Remember, Monsanto is a seed and pesticide maker, so its presence is already heaviest by far in the rural areas. That is where it has operated for many decades. They figured out long ago it is far easier to pass things by "the yokels" (as Monsanto calls it own clients) than it is to pass things by the "liberals" in the city, who are always on the alert. So it is not that the rural folks aren't smart enough to vote for labeling, it is that they aren't savvy enough to follow the high-tech ways that elections are now stolen. It hasn't yet occurred to most of them (I assume) that their entire district can be stolen by one dishonest technician and a mini-disk. Because they are basically honest people, they can't even fathom the dishonesty of some of those in their midst. It is their basic uprightness that interferes with their vigilance. In short, they are far too trusting.

Unlike Mike Adams and most others, I don't immediately assume that rural voters voted against labeling by the margins that are reported. Rather, I assume that Monsanto hacked the computers, and that the computers voted by those margins. It is precisely because I know that the votes are fraudulent that I can give these rural voters the benefit of the doubt in this case. I used to jump to the conclusion that most voters were idiots, and they may well be. But I have since discovered that we can't reach any real conclusions from the current vote totals. Except the conclusion that they are all fake.

Don't assume that the passing of the recreational marijuana propositions are necessarily a sign of hope, either. Some are hailing them as an extension of freedoms and a blow against big government interference. But if the government had wished to crush these propositions, it would have done so in the same way it did Prop. 37. It may be that the government has finally figured out the benefit of having a nation of stoners. They have been drugging us with everything and the kitchen sink for decades, so why not let us drug ourselves? Pot isn't as pernicious as fluoride or mercury or vaccines or GMOs, and won't kill us in equal numbers, but it will certainly keep us quiet and sleepy (and hungry for more GMO-laced unlabeled goodies). Here's something to look forward to: genetically modified pot! You may think I'm joking, but unless you wake up, put down the bong, slap yourself, and get rid of the voting machines, it's gonna happen.

Update, Friday, November 9, 2012. This is an update on the Prop. 37 result, which I said hit 100% sometime Wednesday morning. Turns out that was false like everything else. Thursday afternoon, a reporter named Jon Rappoport —who writes for Naturalnews.com, among other places—called several county registrar offices in California, including LA, Orange, Santa Clara, and San Diego counties. He was told that almost 783,000 votes were still uncounted in LA, plus 896,000 in the other three counties. That is 1.6 million votes in just four of 54 counties. The Secretary of State has since posted an admission that at least 3.3 million votes have not been counted as of November 9. That's 25.4% of the total vote yet to be counted (from an estimated total vote of 13 million). Prop. 37 was "lost" by only 560,000 votes, and—as I showed above—the percentage of "yes" votes was climbing quickly all night long (Tuesday night).

Critics of Rappoport have said that the remaining votes would have to be "yes" by 2/3rds to change the outcome. Not true. If "yes" got 2/3rds (66.7%) of the 3.3 million votes, it's percentage would go all the way up to 51.8%. It only needs to go to 50.01 to win or 50.0 to get a recount. That means "yes" only needs 59% of the remaining votes. Not 67%, but only 59%. Funny how the "critics" always lie. I watched the "outcome" change by 10 points in a matter of hours Tuesday night. The early votes were 59% "no," so why can't the late votes be 59% "yes"?

So it would appear that the vote had to be stolen a second time. From studying the numbers, it appears that Monsanto tried to steal it early by hacking computers in rural California, creating what they thought would be an insurmountable lead. However, it looks like they may have miscalculated. As more votes came in Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, the "yes" vote climbed from below 42% to above 47%. At that point, the counting apparently halted for some reason and the election was called. A day and a half later, the votes were still sitting there uncounted. Why? At whose request? Why would a state simply stop counting legally cast votes? Do they plan on counting them, ever?

The website of the Sec. of State says that counties have a full month to report final numbers. A month? What do they have, one guy with an abacus? Why can they count 10 million votes in a matter of hours on election night, but it takes a month to count the final 3.3 million? Did it take a month to count the votes in 2000 in Florida, as we watched on TV? No. The first total was done within days. Then a total recount, then partial recounts. "Yes on 37" needs to not just ask for a recount. They need to demand an initial count, now.

I suggest that someone ordered the count to stop, and that order was placed because the late votes were going so heavily to "yes". You should also realize that uncounted votes sitting around in a room for days are prone to corruption. The longer they sit there, the more likely they are to be lost, misfiled, or tampered with. This is precisely why states have rules about timely counting. Votes should be counted immediately, not when someone gets around to it. That shouldn't even need to be said.

Look for lawsuits in California on this. You can add them to the already proceeding lawsuits for false advertising that "no on 37" is facing.

I would also like to repeat what I said in my previous paper. The Democratic party in California endorsed a "yes" vote on 37, and the Democrats just won a rare supermajority in the California legislature. Neither party has had a supermajority in California since 1933. That means that the Democrats can do just about anything they want, with no fear of contradiction from the other party. Since that is so, we should look for them to pass a GMO labeling law on their own. Remember, the only reason a state has to have a proposition is that the legislature is not able to do the deed on their own. So the people try to get it done directly. But the Democrats no longer have politics to hide behind. They cannot claim that they are being blocked or that they don't have the votes. They endorsed GMO labeling, so they must be for it, right? If that is so, and if they have a supermajority, nothing is stopping them from passing a law requiring GMO labeling. We should hope (and demand) that the law they pass will be even stricter than Prop. 37, which was actually weak.

Which leads me directly to two other points. One, when a vote passes by a large margin, the receiver of that vote is said to "have a mandate." So we may assume that the new super majority Democratic legislature in California has a mandate. That means that the Democratic party enjoys very strong support, right? Well, by extension, it must mean that the Democratic party platform also enjoys very strong support. If you support a party, you do so because you support its platform—its list of priorities. Well, one of the Democratic party's endorsements was for GMO labeling. Which means, logically, GMO labeling should have strong support from California voters. Why would voters in California vote in a Democratic supermajority whose platform included GMO labeling, and then vote against GMO labeling? It doesn't make sense.

Which brings me to point two. This contradiction in voting is yet another indication that the vote on Prop. 37 was a fraud.It is another smoking gun. It is what mathematicians call a fudge. It doesn't add up. Democrats are voted in as a supermajority in California for the first time ever (the supermajority in 1933 was Republican), part of their platform includes GMO labeling, and yet GMO labeling gets voted down? Extremely unlikely.

If the support for the Democratic party were in the low 50's, I might be able to understand it. Maybe voters supported some Democratic planks but not others. But a supermajority indicates a level of support above 67%. That is huge. Besides which, the GMO labeling was a big deal this fall. It was not a marginal issue. It had been one of the hot topics for months, not just in California but nationwide and worldwide. The fact that a Democratic supermajority just got voted in is a another major headache for Monsanto. They will ask themselves why this Proposition couldn't have happened in a normal year, when the party that endorsed against them wasn't being voted into the legislature in historic numbers. They will try to pass it off as coincidence or bad luck, but it clearly is neither. It is a clear sign for those who can read signs. It should push smart voters to ask what I am asking. It should lead them to question the Prop. 37 vote, and to investigate it. It should also lead them to watch the legislature closely, to see what they do about GMO labeling. They have endorsed GMO labeling, and they have a supermajority. What is to stop them from passing a law immediately?

*911 votes? These guys love to insert jokes, even at times like this.
**Others were so-called blue-Republicans, who had crossed over from the Democratic party simply to vote for Paul. They were even less likely to vote for Romney.
†Going in, Paul only needed five states to be nominated from the floor. The GOP changed the rule on the spot to eight, refusing to accept the nomination from the states. Why eight? Because it was feared Paul might have seven.
1 GOP State Convention floor vote: 33 of 40 to Paul, or 82.5%. All 33 voted for Paul in Tampa. Romney lost Minnesota to Obama.
2 GOP State Convention floor vote: 22 of 28 to Paul, or 78.6%. All 22 voted for Paul in Tampa. Romney lost Iowa to Obama.
3 GOP State Convention floor vote: 23 of 28 to Paul, or 82%. 17 voted for Paul in Tampa, plus 6 more abstaining, angering the GOP establishment. Romney lost Nevada to Obama.
4 GOP State Convention floor vote: 21 of 24 to Paul, or 87.5%. The GOP National Convention refused to seat 11 of these Paul delegates and ejected the other 10 during the Convention. This effectively disenfranchised almost 90% of Maine's Republican voters. Romney lost Maine to Obama.
5 GOP District Caucus floor votes: 34 of 46 to Paul, or 74%. The Louisiana State Convention then changed its rules illegally, to switch 33 of 34 Paul delegates to Romney. The Paul delegates filed suit but then accepted a dishonorable compromise, whereby they kept 17 delegates. This effectively disenfranchised 37% of Louisiana's Republican voters.
6GOP State Convention floor vote: 20 of 36 delegates are unpledged and unbound to Romney, or 56%. They are free to vote Paul and many suspect they will do so, hiding behind the unpledged emblem. 8 abstain in Tampa. Colorado goes to Obama.