-Caveat Lector-
Dear Gavin --
Sorry for the delay in answering, and thanks for your kind words. I believe
the Collier book is indispensible reading. The book, as you know, is a kind
of journey of the "Colliers as Investigative Detectives" -- it was their
story and the incredible type of experiences you have when you go all out to
take on the Ruling Elite on the local or national level.
The Colliers were the real "Geraldos" or the real "Jack Andersons" of our
age. The "Geraldos" and "Jack Andersons" are phonies who only go so far, and
it isn't very far -- so they can continue to have access to the evil Big TV
networks. I have no respect for the position that the Collier book is "not
credible" as has been stated by The New American (betraying their
predecessor, American Opinion, which carried the first national article ever
on Vote Fraud in the computer age, written by Susan L.M. Huck in 1977) or,
for instance, The Clinton Administration Scandals (CAS) list on the internet
moderated by Ray Heiser, which covers very effectively much of the minutia
of the Clinton Scandals, but doesn't seem to want to see the big picture.
One caution: the reader must use critical thinking when reading the Collier
material in one respect: The Colliers would present some of their educated
guesses as virtually certain. They have usually been proven right over
time, but in some cases the jury is still out. Example: In the first or
second chapter of Votescam, they intimate that John Sununu was rewarded by
George Bush with the Chief of Staff position in the Bush White House because
Sununu was instrumental in fixing the computers in New Hampshire to give
Bush an upset victory there in 1988 against Bob Dole. They point out that
Sununu was an owner in some way or another of the computer company that
counted the votes in Manchester -- about 30% of the vote in New Hampshire
(the rest of the votes in NH are counted in the proper way, by citizens at
the precincts before the votes leave the precinct -- and NH is the only
place left where that happens at all). Now I am still open to the
possibility that Sununu was involved in such chicanery. Very strange things
happened against Pat Buchanan and for Bush in NH in 1992.
But it's not proven yet, and Sununu has never commented on it (probably
doesn't feel the need to do so) one way or the other. I personally think
that people like Sununu are not at a high enough level to be told about how
and when computer elections are fixed, which I believe is done by a "deep
cover" operation of CIA types who cooperate with the Big Media to make sure
that the Ruling Elite (centered around the FED in this country) remains in
power against any and all challengers. But's that just a guess, too.
So, with the caveat to be careful to scrutinize what the Colliers prove, or
what they testify to from first hand experience, vs. what they present as
educated guesses --- I highly recommend the book, and really feel it is
essential reading at this time in America.
I met them in 1985 when we invited them to Cincinnati to help investigate
the Board of Elections on election Night 1985 in Cincinnati, Ohio. This
story is told in Votescam: The Stealing of America in chapter 12 entitled
"Strange Bedfellows."
We had a court order allowing us to name experts to investiage "any and all"
aspects of the election process", and two of the experts we named were the
Colliers. This story is also told in a pamphlet I wrote called "The Greatest
Cover-up of All: Votefraud in America" -- the Colliers did a great job, as
proven by the fact that the Judge was called down to the Board of Elections
to modify his court order to forbid videotaping on election night!
There is a great exchange between Ken Collier and Judge Richard Niehaus,
caught on the audio portion of the film, in which the Judge is trying to
defend his decision to forbid videotaping. The Colliers had guts and they
risked arrest in the minutes that followed, at which time they did capture
on videotape women tweezing votes out of ballots with household tweezers.
The next morning we were on the Jan Mickelson Show on WCKY and the Board of
Elections would not put anyone on against us. I have this on audiotape also,
and we really should make these available for historical posterity.
I learned a lot from the Colliers, including the existence of the scoundrels
at Voter News Service who "conduct" all those bogus exit polls every
election day for all four (now five) of the Big TV networks. Chapter 15 and
16 in Votescam are absolute dynamite on exit polls and the Big TV network's
darling, Voter News Service. Thank God, the Colliers got their life
investigation down in writing.
Why did the Colliers call the chapter about themselves and ourselves
"Strange Bedfellows" ?? Well, the Colliers were sixty leftists who were
deeply involved in that whole movement. They were friends with Tom Hayden,
who later wouldn't help them at all. Hayden, another sell out. They arranged
the now infamous concert where the lead singer for the Doors was arrested.
There's an "ode to John Lennon" in the back of the Votescam book by Ken
Collier who was deceased by the time it was published.
I was an alternate delegate to the Nixon convention in 1972. I became a John
Bircher for a while in the 70's and early 80's. Today I am a Buchanan,
Howard Phillips "conservative". I have worked as a minor regional leader in
the Pro-Life movement since 1972. I am Catholic of primarily Irish/Italian
descent, the Colliers were Jewish/Puerto Rican (same heritage as Geraldo
Rivera). The above explains why they named the chapter about our original
collaboration "Strange Bedfellows".
But we had in common a strong desire for justice and fair play in the public
arena. The Colliers put everything on the line for their crusade, which was,
truly, "our crusade" -- I mean all of us, the citizens of the USA.
The courage of the Colliers in the pursuit of justice, even in the face of
overwhelming odds against them, which they pursued to the very end without
attenuation or compromise -- will always be an inspiration for me. Jim
Condit Jr.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 12:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [CTRL] Polls
>
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> Good job Jim. You've taken the time to research the subject and your
> conclusions verify what many others are saying, which is, that
> these Clinton
> polls showing him to be very popular are nonsense. After having read
> "Votescam" by the Collier brothers (both are now dead) I'm in
> agreement with
> you that the voting system in this country is totally
> compromised. What do you
> think of the book? Gavin.
>
>
> << Hey, Jerry! Polling is a "discipline"??? A discipline in high
> risk, high
> stakes deception maybe -- when practised by the Big 5 TV
> networks (FOX now
> aboard in that elite group). Also, your assertion that "the American
> people" "elected" Clinton twice is merely an act of faith on
> your part, as
> it has been made illegal in every state but New Hampshire to exersize
> citizen checks and balances on the computerized vote count. That's right,
> just like in tin horn dictatorships, or Communist countries, any American
> citizen who tries to double check the vote at the neighborhood precinct
> will be met with police power and eventually arrested if they insist.
>
> First to polling:
>
> Who are these polling "practitioners" who know the "ins and
> outs"?? Please
> read SuperPollsters: How They Measure and Manipulate Public Opinion in
> America by David W. Moore, who himself has been a pollster for 26 years.
> The book is endorsed by David Broder of the Washington Post, so it can
> hardly be dismissed by people like yourself, who believe that
> the polls are
> "scientific." Here is a sentence from the concluding paragraphs of the
> book: "There is still a tendency for media polls to create the
> illusion of
> public opinion, by asking forced-choice questions on some topics that are
> unfamiliar to most people. And public opinion about most topics is not as
> fully explored as it was for the Persian Gulf War, often resulting in
> misleading conclusions about its stability and precision." end of quote.
> And then the concluding sentence ends with, " . . . polling can, indeed,
> provide a continuous monitoring of the elusive pulse of
> democracy. More or
> less."
>
> This is the polling industry speaking. I charge without doubt that the
> polling by the 5 Big TV networks on Clinton is weighted and
> dishonest. Who
> are they polling? Exactly how is the poll conducted? It's permissable to
> question and scrutinize ANYTHING in the election process EXCEPT 1) How
> polls are done and who is polled; 2) how the votes are "counted" by the
> computer programs (I have yet to talk to one county official who signs
> election results as "true" who can even name the person who
> programmed the
> computer which counted the votes!!!) ---- and yet, we are supposed to run
> our entire country based on these daily polls, and the computerized vote
> counting, -- and also on that complete hoax known as "exit polling" !!!!
> The ENTIRE argument of the sorry rabble of Clintonistes on the
> talk shows
> is -- THE POLLS and the COMPUTERIZED VOTE COUNTS of the last two
> Presidential elections. What a gullible nation we have become.
>
> I'm sorry to have to refer to my own website, but www.networkamerica.org
> contains much much more information on the unverifiable and
> riggable nature
> of exit polls and computerized voting, as well as numerous referrals to
> experts and articles (some in the establishment press) which back up the
> position I have stated above. I list 4 or 5 of them below for those who
> won't have time to do further research. Furthermore:
>
> Howard Phillips of Conservative Caucus published that his wife was called
> for a poll on Clinton, -- but the pollsters exited the phone
> call after she
> answered to one of the "lead in" questions/comments by stating
> that she was
> not "the lady head of the house", but her husband was head of
> the house. A
> caller on WLW radio (50,000 watt clear channel voice,
> Cincinnati, Ohio) on
> Saturday morning December 26 relayed that his sister in Georgia
> was called
> for a poll about Clinton, but hung up on when she said she had not voted
> for Clinton. These are anecdotal, but one would be stretching to dismiss
> them out of hand.
>
> Is any rational person supposed to believe that while 60% of the voting
> public voted against Clinton, that 70% now support him even after he's
> shown to be an adulterer, liar, perjurer . . .? Right. WHO ARE THE BIG
> MEDIA-paid POLLSTERS POLLING? The Big Media really blew its cover when it
> published on the day after the first wave of recent Iraq bombings -- that
> 70% of the people thought there was no connection between the imminent
> impeachment vote and the sudden Iraq bombings!!!! Right. Who in hades are
> these big media-paid pollsters polling?
>
> And, you are on a conspiracy research list, and you're putting
> out the bunk
> that Clinton is the one responsible for the economy????? He's giving the
> Alan Greenspan crowd, The Ruling Elite, what they want, and
> Greenspan keeps
> the interest rates down. Also, the economy is only great for the Vultures
> on Wall Street, the average working man is groaning under
> unnecessary debt
> artificially created by even the "low" interest rates we have, and the
> ungodly tax burden.
>
> Back to Polls, -- It's now come out that Congressional mail in
> most offices
> is running 2 to 1 FOR impeachment/removal! Every "call in" poll
> from AOL to
> talk show stations which I've heard about -- reports a 2 to 1 margin for
> impeachment/removal. Oh, I forgot, these polls are "unscientific." I say
> they are MORE scientific than the BIg Media Polls because at
> least they are
> spontaneous and honest within their own stated parameters. Jerry, why do
> YOU have such unlimited and credulous faith in the Big Media
> Polls and the
> uncheckable computerized vote "counts" ??????
>
> More on phony Big Media polls designed to MANIPULATE and CONDITION public
> opinion, rather than measure it:
>
> I was in Dubuque, Iowa for the Buchanan-Dole primary race of 1996. CNN,
> ABC, CBS, and NBC ran for a week that Dole was at 28%, Forbes 26% and
> Buchanan 12%. Walking around in Dubuque, Dole was POSITIVELY despised by
> everyone of the normal people. People would almost spit when his
> name came
> up. This contradicted the Iowa's "3rd Senator" bilge put out by the Big
> Media - but still it was clear the local party would get out
> some vote for
> Dole. Forbes had no visible support. Buchanan bumper stickers were
> everywhere and Buchanan drew 400 raucously enthusiastic supporters on a
> night where 3 inches of snow had already fallen in the 6 previous hours.
> The others who showed up all drew about 50 to 100 who were more like
> curiosity seekers than supporters.
>
> I started to ask myself, "Do the Big Networks know something we
> don't know?
> Is there really a groundswell for Forbes that they can measure from New
> York and D.C., but is not evident to anyone on the ground there
> in Dubuque?
> AND GUESS WHAT!!!
>
> On the Saturday before the Iowa Caucus (to be held two days later on
> Monday, Feb 12, 1996, --- ALL FOUR OF THE SLEAZY BIG NETWORKS DROPPED THE
> POLL NUMBERS THAT HAD BEEN RUNNING FOR THE LAST 10 days --- and suddenly
> stated that, because of Forbes negative advertising, they would have to
> abandon making any prediction for Monday's Caucus, because now 40% had
> become undecided !!! Here's the real reason: All four networks were
> conspiring to keep Buchanan's vote down and boost the ridiculous
> establishment candidates, Forbes and Dole. You see, the Iowa Caucus could
> not be messed with en masse, as could the computerized states
> such as Ohio,
> Texas, California, etc., because it was not an unverifiable computerized
> vote! It was a live caucus where people from each neighborhood met and
> voted and counted the votes on the spot. So the final "official" result?
> Dole 26%, Buchanan 23%, Forbes 12%. You see, if we believe the absurd Big
> TV Network story, for the first time in history, the negative advertising
> against Dole barely affected Dole, but it boomeranged on Forbes and drove
> HIS numbers down from 26% to 12% -- what a bunch of malarkey.
> There is much
> evidence that the State GOP, with the full cooperation of the 4 Big
> networks, did much to inflate Dole's numbers and suppress Buchanan's even
> at that; for instance, we PROVED by eye-witness evidence of Dole, Gramm,
> Keyes, and Buchanan people on the scene in Dubuque -- that Voter News
> Service (exit polling arm of all Big 4 TV stations, confirmed by
> FEC report
> by Margaret Sims, 1994) and the Iowa GOP stole 13% of Buchanan's vote in
> Dubuque by the time it hit the wire services the next morning. If they
> stole only 4% statewide, then Buchanan, not Dole, who the Iowa Primary.
> There was much more chicanery too, most of which is covered in the
> "newspaper" at www.networkamerica.org.
>
> I'll leave the computer-vote tallying info to a few referrals:
> The Dangers
> of Computerized Voting by Ronnie Dugger, New Yorker, Nov. 7, 1988 at your
> library. The book: Votescam: The Stealing of America by James & Kenneth
> Collier: Pandora's Black Box: Did It Really Count Your Vote? --
> Relevance
> Magazine, Nov, 1996; two election reports put out by the Commerce
> Department and supervised by Roy Saltman which catalogued dozens of
> election situations which showed that to believe the computerized vote
> tally is simply, "an act of faith."
>
> Did you know, even with as bad/horrible/senile a candidate as Dole was,
> that he won more counties than Clinton? That Clinton's victories
> came from
> the overwhelming margins he "garnered" in the Big City computer
> counts? My
> guess is that Clinton probably beat Dole, but it is much less
> certain that
> he defeated Bush in 1992 (of course, all three men are
> absolutely horrible)
> -- but my point is that it is an act of faith on your part or mine to
> believe that Clinton won these elections. Sorry if this upsets so many
> people commentary on current realities.
>
> Also, we "Clijnton haters" hate his evil, EVIL agendas and thoroughly
> transparant disgusting hypocrisy --- not him, as he is a
> pathetic figure by
> any historical standard, and a pathetic puppet to students of the Ruling
> Elite. Your use of "Clinton Hater" is an attempt to associate mental
> imbalance due to over-charged emotions to those who see
> Clinton's evil. Or,
> maybe, you are a "Hitler-Hater" out of overcharged emotion ---
> not based on
> Hitler's evil, EVIL agendas, record and actions????? I give you
> more credit
> than that, and I wish you would give those of us who oppose Clinton's
> agenda, just as much credit.
>
> Best Wishes to all, Jim Condit Jr. P.S. I think most of us on this list
> would actually be friends if we met in restaurants in person -- because,
> unlike so many in our society, we really care about these issues. My
> pointed language and exclamation points are to make my points forcefully
> and quickly -- and should not be viewed as personal enmity
> against any one
> I'm in the process of disagreeing with. >>
>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list.
> Proselyzting propagandic
> screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are
> sordid matters
> and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections
> and outright
> frauds is used politically by different groups with major and
> minor effects
> spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
> gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always
> suggests to readers;
> be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
> nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
>
> ========================================================================
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
