Network AmericaOther Late-Breaking News 
BACK
OFTEN!
August 5, 1999
CNN's Inside Politics carried reporter in Iowa who stated that Lamar Alexander and Dan Quayle are simply not generating any enthusiasm on the ground.
Watch out for John McCain. McCain has no ground support in Iowa or anywhere else, but he is a favorite of the Ruling Elite. McCain is NOT participating in the Ames Straw Poll for the simple reason that he has no support on the ground out there, and no money to try and buy votes like Bush and Forbes are trying to do.
Nevertheless, there is a subtle and building drumbeat for McCain. One could read the signs to suggest that the establishment is thinking about dumping Bush for McCain somewhere down the line, if Bush falters. This might become especially necessary if Buchanan and Sen. Bob Smith team up to lead a US Taxpayers ticket, as the Bush-Gore clones would be hard to distinguish from each other, while Senator McCain has the distinction of being a POW in Vietnam who survived to come home. A book, documentary, and who-knows-what-else is in the works to promote McCain. The promotion should be starting a few months from now.
However, McCain is as boring as W. Bush is shallow. (McCain is like Bob Newhart without the jokes.) The Ruling Elite has a real problem if Americans can force a fair vote count. Of course, if computers "count" our vote in the 2000 general election as it has in the past 3 and beyond, you can expect another rousing win for the evil Ruling Elite which runs both the Republican and Democratic National Committees.
August 4, 1999
Rumors are flying again that Pat Buchanan will leave the Republican Party in the near future to seek the nomination of the US Taxpayers Party and the Reform Party. Inside Politics on CNN reported that Bay Buchanan, sister of the candidate has been speaking with Pat Choate, Perot confidant and vice president on the Reform ticket in 1996.
If Buchanan would pick Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire as his vice-presidential candidate and win both the US Taxpayers Party Nomination and the Reform Party nomination, a major realignment in American Politics would take place. On the other hand, these rumors could have been floated by another Republican contender, in hopes of lessening Buchanan's support at the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday, August 14th.
The Buchanan-Smith ticket would have to make the honest vote count issue a cornerstone of the campaign, and mention it in every stump speech.
Rumors further have it that Perot is furious with Jesse Ventura for trying to marginalize Perot as a has-been. On the other hand, Network America stated a few days ago that we do not believe Perot is his own man, based on past evidence. The Buchanans may find that the Perot gambit, if such as in progress, may be a bait and switch. For if Buchanan leaves the Republican Party and then is denied the Reform Party nomination, it could damage his credibility.
On the other hand, a Buchanan-Smith ticket running under the US Taxpayers Banner would certainly cause the much hoped for realignment in American Politics, even if the Reform Party nominated someone else.
July 25, 1999
This morning Tim Russert on Meet the Press showed a recorded interview with Governor Jesse "The Mind-Body" Ventura about the fight between Ventura and Ross Perot for control the Reform Party. By afternoon it was reported that Jack Gargan, Ventura's candidate, had been elected executive director of the Reform Party.
Gargan became famous in political circles about a decade ago when he used his own savings to run large newspaper ads throughout the country for T.H.R.O. (Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out). Gargan's message to voters was to vote against ALL incumbents, no matter what. His ads also asked voters to support only those challengers who would support term limits and prohibit deficit spending, except in times of real national emergency. (Gargan like almost everybody else failed to grasp that what we really needed was a fair and honest vote count.)
While Gargan has proved himself willing to sacrifice to try and help the country, he is motivated by the somewhat shallow, somewhat confused value-neutral, economics-only "philosophy" which seems to bind together the activists of the Reform Party. However, we fear that neither Gargan nor anyone else can do much for the country through the Reform Party.
The Reform Party has all the earmarks of "false opposition." It has all the earmarks of another entity started by the same Ruling Elite alliances which run the Democratic and Republican Parties at the national level - to delay an effective reaction from an increasingly restless and outraged population.
Let's recall how the Reform Party was born. Here's what led up to Ross Perot's appearance on Larry King Live where he made his announcement that he would run for President. (It will seem like we're about to take a detour from the announced subject, and we are; but it will get us to a true understanding of the Reform Party much more quickly.)
In 1992, Pat Buchanan pulled an end-run on the Ruling Elite. He moved from the conservative chair on CNN's Crossfire directly into the Presidential race to challenge President George Bush, thus by-passing the screening process at the local and state levels which usually succeed in screening out men of substance.
There was no way for the Big Media to ignore the Buchanan candidacy. By New Hampshire Primary Day, 1992, Buchanan had tapped into the seething dissatisfaction in the electorate. The Ruling Elite was well aware of this, and probably moved all the levers at their disposal to steal the 1992 GOP New Hampshire primary from Buchanan. (Remember, 70% of New Hampshire is counted by hand, so an election can't be stolen outright like it can in computer counted primaries like Ohio, Texas, or California.) But, in any case, the Buchanan phenomenon revealed to them how widespread and deep was the revulsion against the program George Bush and his New World Order cronies were pushing down the American peoples collective throat.
If the Buchanan-led opposition against a sitting President held until election day in the 1992 New Hampshire Primary, damage control would be needed. The LAST thing the Ruling Financial Elite wanted was for a real opposition movement to develop against their twin servants: the Republican and Democratic parties. Keep in mind, at that point, no one knew if Buchanan might be persuaded to bolt to a third party, like the US Taxpayers Party headed by Howard Phillips.
When the Ruling Elite saw that Bush had lost or nearly lost in the 1992 NH primary (or won by 12% , if you prefer the official version of the published primary results) we believe the strategy which the Ruling Elite had taught Lenin 75 years earlier, and which has been used so many times since, was trotted once again: "The best way to control our opposition is to lead it ourselves." Bear in mind, Lenin probably did not originate this idea. He was probably taught it by the international bankers who funded him. We will see in a minute the matter of surprise funding help is the one similarity between Lenin and Ross Perot.
Now, on the way to recalling the appearance of Ross Perot on the national political stage, let's look at what ostensibly happened on NH primary day, 1992.
Early exit polls showed Buchanan running neck and neck with Bush at 49% to 49%. The early returns showed the same thing. Then a curious thing began to happen. While Bush hung at 49%, Buchanan began to drop every few hours …. 46% … 42% …. 40%. Then, on Wednesday morning (!) Buchanan dropped to 37%. Bush stayed at 49%. What was going on?
Warren Mitofsky, former CBS employee who became the key figure behind Voter News Service (the firm which does those phony exit polls for all four big TV Networks), tried to explain what happened to Time magazine (the article appears in its post NH 1992 primary issue). Mitofsky said that the 1992 NH primary exit polls were off because Buchanan supporters were so much more willing than Bush supporters to talk to the exit pollers. WHHAATTT? You mean these polls aren't scientific? You mean they are dependent upon who feels like talking to the exit pollers? Yes, Virginia. Warren Mitofsky admitted all that and much, much more with his lame defense of why his exit polls were so far off in the Bush-Buchanan contest. This is not the place to flesh out all the ramifications of Mitofsky's astounding admission.
Still, at midnight of the election day in New Hampshire on Tuesday, February 18, 1992, Buchanan had only dropped to 40%, Bush suspiciously hanging still at 49%.
But then, in the early morning hours of Wednesday, February 19th, the world was told that Buchanan had dropped to 37%. Bush still hung at 49%. HOW CONVENIENT for Bush and the Ruling Elite. 40% was viewed as a devastating percentage of opposition, and Buchanan had to be dropped to 37%, below the 40% benchmark.
The next night, Wednesday night, Buchanan was the guest on CNN's Larry King Live. Larry King offered the following astounding news (and we still have it on videotape): (paraphrase) Larry: "Pat, did you hear that they found 10,000 more votes this morning in New Hampshire?" Buchanan. "No." (I suppose we are to swallow that these 10,000 "found" votes caused Buchanan to drop to 37% - Bush still hanging at 49%, of course.)
And then do you remember who appeared on Larry King the very next night, February 20, 1992? Why, it was one Ross Perot, who just "happened" to announce that night that he would be willing to run for President and start a third party movement. This was the first major move in the "stop the Buchanan Brigades at all costs" effort that is now in its 7th year.
As stated above, Ross Perot is no Lenin. He is, as far as he is allowed to be, a patriot. He tried to rescue POWs left behind after Vietnam. But the same financial elite which sent Lenin into Russia in 1917 to try and overthrow the Czar has its hooks in little Perot. For in the late 1960's Ross Perot lost a key bid for the business of New York State for his new computer software business. BUT, after he had lost, Nelson Rockefeller re-opened the bids, and this time Ross Perot won. Now let's watch the strange behavior of Perot as 1992 developed and see if this analysis (predicated on the idea that Perot is a creation and ally of the Ruling Elite) does not fill in the pieces better than any other you have seen.
Whatever Perot is thinking, his movement had a two-fold purpose: 1) stop a real patriotic movement from gaining steam by diverting media attention with his phony third party movement; 2) throw the election to the Ruling Elite's pre-ordained choice in 1992 and 1996: Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. The Reform Party was going to be allowed to fall into disuse, until Senator Bob Smith left the GOP and began to pose a threat to the two major parties in 2000. Now the Reform Party is being resuscitated in the media as "the" third party alternative.
Now let's return to the bizarre progression of Perot related events in 1992. Here's what happened next:
After New Hampshire, the primaries moved into the big computer states, and the computers told us that Bush defeated Buchanan in every primary. Yet Buchanan pressed on, gathering enough support at rallies and media appearances to make the establishment slightly nervous regarding future presidential elections.
In the meantime, the Perot phenomenon had taken a turn that was not in the script: the pent up resentment against the Republi-crat Duopoly burst forth now that a third alternative was given play by the big media. Perot was soaring ahead in the polls. I believe it was something like 36% to 21% for Clinton (the likely Democratic nominee) to 21% for Bush, with 22% undecided.
What happened next is known by very few people. In the week of the Democratic convention, Perot took a mysterious trip into New York city that was revealed in a small article tucked away in the New York Times. I mean, is his dentist located there? Or was he getting his marching orders from his old benefactors, the Rockefellers? Or what?
Perot quietly returned to Texas and . . .. It was the morning after the last night of the Democratic convention. The useful or willing idiot Perot appeared on national TV to stun his supporters and announce that he was dropping out of the race! The reasons? He had not bargained for the personal cost and …. and … and …. he said he was dropping out because Clinton had revitalized the Democratic Party the night before! Enough said … what else does any right thinking person need to know about the real Perot? But things get more sinister yet …
Then, after Perot had destroyed his own credibility, he jumped back in the race in order to insure that Clinton would win the election against Bush. I don't mean to be saying anything good about Bush here, it's just that the Ruling Elite wanted Clinton in 1992. … And somewhere along the line Perot came up with that story about the Black Militants coming on his property to goof up his daughter's wedding, or something to that effect.
The Reform Party leaders are on balance pro-abortion and pro-homosexual lobby. It main star currently, former wrestler Gov. Jesse Ventura, proudly state that the Reform Party doesn't emphasize the social issues, but concentrate on "government issues." Despite pretensions to extraordinary common sense, Ventura and his followers don't seem to understand anything about what's really hurting this country's economics, such as the evil role played by the Federal Reserve Board (a private company). What is Ventura doing in Minnesota except meaninglessly tinkering with the budget? Some may also remember, in 1996 Ross Perot came out for fairly comprehensive gun control.
The Reform Party is a creation of the Ruling Elite through one of its creations: Ross Perot. That's why those who programmed the computers which "counted" our votes in 1996 allowed Perot to get enough votes to qualify for matching funds. And that's why those pulling the strings in the Reform Party will NEVER allow a Pat Buchanan or a Senator Bob Smith to have the nomination and with it access to that $12 million dollars of matching funds to spread their message.
As stated above by 1999, the Ruling Elite bankers who control the issue of money here and around the world were ready to let the Reform Party fall into disuse, just like they let the Communist Party in Russia fall into disuse in 1989. (Jesse Ventura's election as governor of Minnesota is unrelated to this planned de-emphasis of the Reform Party, but that's another story that cannot be gone into here.)
But now, with the surprise move of Senator Bob Smith out of the Republican Party towards an apparent landing into the US Taxpayers Party scheduled for Labor Day 1999, some real opposition is guaranteed to the Bush/Gore carbon copy New World Order puppets who will emerge as the Democratic and Republican nominees after the Super Tuesday computer fix goes in on March 7, 2000. So the Reform Party will have some meaningful role to play after all in the 2000 election. And that role will be to deflect media attention from Smith and his new party, to confuse the voters, and to siphon off meaningful funds from the real opposition. I'm not suggesting that Jesse Ventura and Jack Gargan see it that way or intend it that way. These two, sincere as far as they go, laboring under their stunted moral vision, think that they are the real opposition, but they are not. And they will find out how expendable they are to the real powers behind the Reform Party, if they grow into embracing a position that would really lead the American people in a good direction, such as a position against abortion, for the abolishment of the IRS, or for taking the issue of money out of hands of the Federal Reserve Board. (I hold some slight hope that Ventura may eventually wake up to at least one meaningful issue, which would be good for America.)
If Jack Gargan tries to take the Reform Party in a meaningful direction, he will find that Perot and company move to cut off funding as far as they can.
The best thing that can happen for the real America, is a Smith-Buchanan or a Buchanan-Smith ticket to emerge out of St. Louis where the US Taxpayers Party (one of five parties recognized as national parties by the Federal Election Commission) will change its name to the Constitution or the American Heritage Party, or so rumor has it. This ticket must then demand paper ballots counted by citizens in the precinct, or announce that they and their followers will not accept the election results. Anything less will not do. Anything less will ensure that the computers will show any Constitution Party ticket with a pitiful percentage of the vote on election day. If patriotic forces demand and get the hand count, their ticket will probably win - or come very close. If the fifty Secretaries of State don't do their duty and restore a hand count with citizen checks and balances, then tens of millions of Americans will be aware of the issue and will doubt the election results, which is the next best thing.
The triple Big TV Network weapons of warped public opinion polls, phony exit polls, and riggable computerized elections must be exposed and overturned this year in favor of honest elections, with citizen checks and balances - for we know not when such a chance as we have in this presidential cycle will come again.
July 24, 1999
Even during the coverage this past week of the aftermath of the tragic plane crash and death of JFK Jr., the Big 4 TV Networks have subtly communicated hundreds of messages to the American public which said, "George W. Bush is the unstoppable front runner for the 2000 GOP Presidential nomination."
Will ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN have to file independent expenditure reports for the George W. Bush Presidential campaign? If not, why not? These four corporations-for-profit have been pushing George W. Bush far more effectively than he could have ever pushed himself, and far more effectively than Bush and all his supporters could have done on their own.
The Big TV networks have used their mysterious (I should say phony) public opinion polls to justify the media "coronation" they have already performed on George W. Why doesn't anyone ever ask how these polls are done? Long time pollster David W. Moore, in his book Superpollsters: How They Measure and Manipulate Public Opinion, states that polling is an inexact science at best. So why do we allow the Big Media to get away with driving our country and our future with polls about which we know nothing. We don't know if they are skewed. We don't know if they are even real. For instance, those who pay for polls can choose to release them or not to release them. How many polls do the Big networks take before they release the one that conforms to their propaganda line of the day? Or, sometimes, do they just make them up? We need the polling disclosure act of 1999.
The air time that the Big TV Networks have donated pushing their propaganda that George W. Bush is the front runner - has cost well in excess of the $35 million George Bush has raised, if he had had to pay for it.
How is it that the contributions of individuals are capped at $1,000 to a presidential candidate, corporation donations are illegal to individual candidates, and yet these 4 big corporations, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN can donate all the air time and publicity (worth millions of dollars) they desire to push the candidate whom they jointly decide to push? The same objections can be applied to the New York Times, and the other big newspapers.
Howard Phillips, head of The Conservative Caucus and driving force behind the US Taxpayers party, has suggested term limits for the owners of the four big networks, who occupy "public" airwaves.
The immediate solution is for patriotic Americans to brand the four Big TV networks for what they are: the greatest domestic enemy that our country has ever faced. These Big Media outlets are not the "referees of the political game" which they try to pass themselves off as - they are the largest, most powerful pro-active players in that game.
The monopoly these Big 4 have enjoyed to reach mass audiences is being ended by the internet. Let's give them a push into well deserved contempt in this new internet era by pointing out to our fellow citizens their coordinated (understand? COORDINATED!) evil attempts to control America's collective mind by sophisticated, calculated propaganda.
Of course, Clinton has enjoyed this same support from the media for 8 years (almost deposed once until Clinton caved in to Ruling Elite demands), and President Bush enjoyed it for the 4 years before he was dethroned in favor of Clinton in 1992. Bush was favored over Dukakis by the Big Media in 1988. Once you see through the Big TV Network scam, it becomes easy to pick out who the 4 of them have decided to favor in any given time period.
The overriding political reality of this last American generation of the 20th century and the 2nd Millennium A.D. is that the 4 Big TV networks are the Kingmakers. They are more powerful than the President, more powerful than the Congress. The Big Media sets the agenda and determines what will be discussed daily. We have just finished a week in which the sudden and tragic death of John Kennedy Jr. has been given saturation coverage by the Big Media. Isn't it interesting that all other world news has seemingly stood still during this week? Maybe there was no significant news. But if there has been, the Big Media decided not to discuss it. They are the Kingmakers, and they must be exposed and deposed from that position.
Let me suggest signs that should greet George W. Bush wherever he shows up: "Bush, ABC's candidate, not mine"; "Bush, CNN's candidate, not ours;" and so on. - Jim Condit Jr.
July 15, 1999
It turns out that Senator Bob Smith could be the candidate of destiny with regard to the votefraud issue.
- In
1996, all 4 Big TV networks projected the winners
correctly in the 49 computer counted states. BUT, all 4
projected that Senator Bob Smith would lose in New
Hampshire. As the outlying handcounted areas came in,
Senator Smith pulled ahead and won! This shows two
things: 1) All four Big TV networks get their exit poll
results from the same source (Voter News Service - see
next paragraph); and 2) the 4 Big TV networks cannot
project winners reliably in states which count votes by
hand. They can only project accurately in states which
use computer-generated "results." Commenting on this
phenomenon, Senator Smith said in a pre-taped interview
which ran on C-Span's "Road to the White House" on
Sunday, July 17, 1999: "They forgot that in New Hampshire
we count the votes before we announce the winners." Smith
added that Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and the other anchors
had to eat crow on national TV. He said they "looked
pretty good eating crow."
- How
is it possible that all four big TV networks projected
the winners and losers correctly in the other 49 states
(counted by computerized systems), yet all four networks
got it wrong in the Smith Senate race in New Hampshire.
Here's how: The election night "exit poll" competition is
completely phony. There is no real competition - and they
KNOW it. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN get their "exit poll"
information at the exact same time, from the exact same
company (Voter News Service). This is confirmed in a 1994
Federal Election Commission report by Margaret Sims, as
well as other sources such as Time magazine in its issue
immediately following the New Hampshire Primary in 1992.
Citizens for a Fair Vote Count has a picture taken of a
Voter News Service exit poll "ballot box" used in
Manchester, New Hampshire during the 1996 GOP primary.
This picture will soon be on the website and it shows the
logos of all 4 Big TV networks and the AP wire service on
this "exit poll" ballot box. The networks pretend to be
in hot competition and to be very proud when they project
the "winner", but NEVER again refer to these projections
they pretend to be so proud of. Citizens for a Fair Vote
Count alleges that these hard-to-find "exit polls" are
window dressing, and that the phony TV network
"competition" to project winners on election night are
conducted for one purpose: to prepare your mind for the
computer generated results to be announced a few hours
later. In the Smith Senate race of 1996, one thing became
clear: the Big TV Networks can reliably project the
winner when the election is counted by computer. In sharp
contrast, these same Big TV Networks CANNOT reliably
project the winner when a significant portion of the
votes are counted by hand by citizens in the neighborhood
precinct. (70% of the New Hampshire ballots are still
counted by hand, 30% are counted by computerized systems
(in these areas, mostly around Manchester, there is no
provision for citizens to double-check the ballots on
election day; as stated elsewhere, all of the other 49
states used the riggable computerized ballot counting
systems in 100% of each state).
- Why could Smith be the candidate of destiny with regard to the dangers of computerized vote fraud and the restoration of fair elections? Smith could add something like this to his stump speech: "I'm from New Hampshire. In every political race I've run, the votes have been counted by the citizens. Now I find out that in the rest of the 49 states, it is effectively illegal for citizens to count the votes on election day. Now I find out that in the rest of the 49 states the citizens are dependent on a computer generated results, totally lacking citizen checks and balances. This is a violation of our right to fair and above-board elections. If the votes in the 2000 Presidential election are counted by the citizens, I believe I will win. If the votes in the 2000 Presidential election are counted by computer, I believe the Republican or Democrat will win." Smith can also use this response when Big Media Talking Heads tell him he doesn't have a chance. Such a response would throw a bomb into the camp of the establishment from which they could not recover. Millions of Smith's supporters can begin clamoring for a citizen hand count on election day, and prepare to picket election sites on election day, as well as hand out business cards which explain to their fellow Americans how our right to know we are participating in a fair election has been stolen from us.
If we don't have a citizen hand count in the 2000 Presidential Race, then millions of Americans will hold the election in contempt, and believe that the new "President" has been installed by computerized votefraud. Why else would the establishment of BOTH major Parties and the Big Newsmedia want to keep computerized systems without citizen checks and balances, which can rig elections from a central location?
July 14, 1999
In a move that stunned the political world, Presidential candidate Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire left the Republican Party and changed his party registration to Independent. He vowed to continue his Presidential Campaign, perhaps in the US Taxpayers Party. On the Senate Floor Smith gave an impassioned speech explaining that he was leaving the GOP after 50 years because his former party was selling out its constituents and failing to uphold the principles it espoused in its National Republican Party Platform, which Smith called a document for "suckers".
Smith drew angry condemnation from GOP leaders, such as National Chairman Jim Nicholson, who warned Smith that his move "would be a serious mistake for you personally." In sharp contrast, GOP Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan defended Smith as a good man and a good Senator, and averred that the problem was in the National GOP leadership. Presidential candidates Gary Bauer and Steve Forbes joined Buchanan in defending Smith and condemning the reaction of GOP national Leaders like Nicholson. Outgoing Director of the Reform Party, Russ Varney, stated on CNN's Crossfire that Smith's move was the most principled act by an elected official in the many years. While establishment newspapers emphasized the spleen-venting of GOP leaders, independent newspapers like The Wanderer and The Spotlight gave Smith an opportunity to explain himself and saw the development as hope for principled Americans to oppose the Republi-crat Duopoly that has abused them for the last several election cycles. The Wanderer did an especially exhaustive job of reporting the Smith announcement.
If the computerized vote counting system remain in place, that everyone can bet their bottom dollar that two mushy Clinton Clones like Al Gore and George W. Bush will emerge as the Democratic and Republican "nominees" after the Super Tuesday computer generated "vote counts" are announced by the 4 Big TV networks in March 2000. If such is the case, then Senator Smith could provide a golden opportunity for both the Pro-Life Precinct Project and a return to honest elections. Election observers will remember that Pat Robertson against V.P. George Bush in 1988, Pat Buchanan against President George Bush in 1992, and Pat Buchanan against Bob Dole in 1996, - did extremely well in the early primaries where citizen checks in balances marked the vote count, only to swamped in "landslides" on Super Tuesday in the Big States - "counted" 100% by computers WITHOUT citizens involvement (indeed, where citizen involvement is effectively forbidden).
It is widely rumored that Smith is being courted by the US Taxpayers Party which will hold its national convention and nominate its Presidential nominee over Labor Day weekend 1999 in St. Louis, Missouri.
Back
to Home Page