How Mitt Romney won the Election
of 2012 and lost the White House
As the media analyzed the Election of 2012 it concluded that Mitt Romney didn't win because (a) he picked Paul Ryan [R-WI] as his running mate instead of Marco Rubio [R-FL]; or (b) because he didn't cater to the Hispanic vote by promising 25 million illegal aliens in the United States a fast-track to citizenship if he was elected.

In the aftermath of what we will loosely call the "Election" of 2012 American Crossroads founder Karl Rove—who was chastised by the media and the Tea Party for backing a moderate instead of a conservative in what the Tea Party called the most important election since the election of George Washington—Rove appeared to have surrendered to the Tea Party where he's now beating the hollow, nackered "far right can win" drum. But Rove, who served two terms with centrist George W. Bush, knows better. The raw numbers are against it.

Let's look at the "why" he knew better. And why every conservative in the United States should know better. Democrats outnumber Republicans. Not just by a little bit—by enough to win every election. There are slightly over 169 million registered voters in the United States. Eighty-five million, or 50.3% of them, are Democrats. That might suggest that its pretty much 50/50. But it doesn't. There are only 55 million Republicans (or 33%). Are you starting to see the problem? It gets worse. There are 7 million registered Liberatarians, Constitution Party members, together with scores of Communists and Green Party liberals—along with a few handfuls of some 25 or 30 other registered political parties.

That leaves about 22 million registered Independents. You might think they're all Tea Partiers. But they aren't. Thirteen million of them are far left liberals. Most of them are social progressive environmentalists. They have registered as "independents" because they prefer to hide the fact that they are mind-and-heart communists.

Out of the 22 million Independents, there are 9 million right and far-right-of-center voters. Most of them identify with the Tea Party movement. None will vote Republican. Forty percent of the Democrats will sit out the election if the Democratic candidate for President is a social progressive. So will 20% of the Republicans—those we refer to RINOs (Republican-in-name-only). Thirty-eight million registered Democrats will always vote Democratic. An additional 13 million environmentalists will always vote with them. That means the Democratic candidate is always assured 51 million "Democratic" votes—without any chicanery taking place.

Out of the 55 million registered Republicans, 44 million (not taking into account crossover votes), will vote Republican. However, the farther left the Republican candidate, the fewer conservative Republican voters will vote for that candidate, but the more Democratic moderate voters will. The fringe-right voters who claim they always "vote their integrity" (while forsaking intellectual reasoning) will either cast their vote for fringe party candidates, or they will sit out the election. The Republicans will lose those races by a margin of approximately 7 points without any vote fraud taking place. Without a heavy crossover vote of moderate Democrats voting for the Republican, the Democrats will win seven out of ten elections.

In the Election of 2008, where 4,934,814 right-of-center conservatives who normally would not have voted for a liberal Repubican, ignored McCain and cast their vote for Sarah Palin, 11,013,508 moderate Democrats ignored Sarah Palin and cast their votes for John McCain. That combination should have been enough for the McCain-Palin ticket to win in an honest election. Sadly, the Election of 2008 was anything but honest.

In 2008, 19,158,869 million registered voters on both sides sat out the election. Shockingly, with the Obama Campaign's absolute lack of transparency about who he really is, where he was really born, and why he doesn't possess a real birth certificate—and the fact that he is not a citizen of the United States, 2,030,317 Independent voters who identify themselves as conservative actually voted for Obama. In the end, John McCain actually won the election of 2008—and lost the White House.

The Federal Election Commission [FEC] is required by the Constitution to tabulate all facets of the Election and report those numbers to the American people. In 2008, the FEC reported that 56.8% of the 169 million registered voters, or 96,992,000 voters, voted in the Election of 2008. The problem is, when the votes were counted, there were 132,618,580 votes—or 35,626,580 too many votes—in the ballot boxes.

The same thing happened in 2012. Only Obama won fewer votes than he did in 2008 with more available votes up for grabs. So the political media hype about Obama's popularity was just that—bull crap. In 2012, 57.7% of the registered voters in the United States—90,682,968 citizens—delivered 126,985,809 votes or, 36,299,841 too many votes. What won for Obama wasn't the Hispanic vote, the women's vote, the antigun vote, or the antiwar vote. What won for Obama was the fraudulent vote generated by electronic ballot box manipulation.

Once again, let's do the math. Obama supposedly won 65,915,796 votes. Romney, according to the end game count, won 60,933,500 votes. out of 90,682,968 total votes cast not only for Romney and Obama, but all of the candidates on the ballot. Without adding a single third party candidate, the totals don't add up. That's what happens when you have far more votes than voters. Since almost every voting machine in the nation was serviced by labor unions (particularly SEIU) logic tells us the programmed overvotes were not being cast for the Republican candidates, but the Democrats. So, its not a stretch to say that the 36,299,841 too many votes cast in 2012 went into Obama's tally.

To determine how many people actually voted for Obama in 2012 simply deduct 36,200,841 votes from the 65,915,796 votes he was credited with and you will see that, like in 2008, Obama only won about 29,894,955 votes, losing to Mitt Romney by 31,038,545—not counting the votes stolen from Romney in the battleground states where Democrats early-voted approximately 6 million GOP voters who always vote on Election Day. Even using the posted election numbers for both candidates, subtract the 6 million stolen early cast votes taken from GOP election day votes, and Romney still won 66,933,500 to 59,915,796. And, if you deduct the fraudulent electronic votes which did not have a registered voter casting the ballot, Romney actually won the largest popular vote upsets in the history of the United States: 66,933,500 to 33,714,955—which would have given Obama about as many votes in 2012 that he actually won in 2008: 33,830,317. In 2008 and 2012, the same people voted for Obama, only in 2012 it appears Obama actually attracted 116,362 voters he didn't have in 2008.

How did that happen? The Democratic National Committee did two things. First they datamined the Republican Party voting lists, and second, there is an appearance that they may have used their union influence to rig the electronic voting machines in the battleground States. We know that happened in Clark County, Nevada, Las Vegas in 2010, since that was the only way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV], one of the most corrupt politicians in the United States, could win.

The theft of electronic votes was so obvious that it should have been the lead story in every newspaper in America. Instead, only a handful of local newspapers and Fox News reported a voting anomaly that not only couldn't happen once but somehow happened simultaneously in a thousand voting precincts in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and probably also in North Carolina, Michigan and Florida.

Obama winning 99.99% to 100% of the votes in key precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania? In Philadelphia, where Mitt Romney campaigned heavily and pulled massive crowds, Obama pulled 100% of the vote in 59 voting precincts. In 100 voting precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cincinnati) Romney received zero votes. Again, in Cleveland, Romney pulled crowds in the mega-thousands and received not a single vote. Impossible. And everyone in the media knew it. Yet, the national media chose to ignore it and pretend that Obama had, once again, mesmerized the voters. The voters who knew better than to vote for the community organizer a second time had to be wondering who was dumb enough to vote for the guy who buried America in $16 trillion in debt, a second time.

Many of those make-believe votes came from programming the computers in the e.voting machines so when a vote was cast for Romney, the screen displayed a vote for Obama to confirm. Sometimes the voter got Obama three or four times before Romney popped up and a "confirmed" vote for the candidate they intended to vote for was achieved. What the voter, who was upset about the "errors," didn't realize is that each "error" was actually a vote. Three or four votes for Obama, one for Romney." Romney voters were duped into helping elect Obama.

In the State of Colorado which polled heavily in favor of Romney, 10 counties had voter turnout of from 104% to 120% in an election with a national voter turnout of 57.7%. Keep in mind it's mathematically impossible to have a voter turnout in excess of 100% since the voter pool, regardless of how many potential voter exist, can't be more than 100%. Now, while you may think from the numbers that 4% of the people in one county and 20% of the people in another county, who voted more than once, is a small number—not so.

Once more, keep in mind that in 2012, the national voter turnout average was 57.7% of the registered voters who actually voted. At the very best in a real "get out the vote" State, you're going to experience a voter turnout of 66.5% on the high side, and in a poor voter turnout county, you might have only 48.9% turnout. (These averages equal the national average.) While the actual number may be off as much as 1% or 2%, but the span between the high vote count and the low vote county is spot on.)

Since we don't know if voter turnout was high or low, let's use the national average of voters who turned out vote, or 57.7%. In counties where the voter turnout was 104% of the registered voters, 46.3% more people voted than were registered. Let's say that county had 100 thousand registered voters. The national average for a county with 100,000 registered voters was 57,700 votes. But based on the reported turnout, they counted 65,100 more votes than registered-voter cast votes in the counties with 104% voter turnout. In counties where the voter turnout was 120% (using the same total number of voters) the vote fraud was astronomical. It appears they counted 126,940 more votes than voters.

Also, keep in mind, there were ten of those counties in Colorado (Since there were no senatorial or gubernatorial races in 2012, we know the vote theft originated to help one person—Barack Obama. Obama's polls showed he was going to lose Colorado in a not very close race. Even having Gary Johnson [R-NM] and Virgil Goode [R-VA] in the race was not going to help Obama. Jury-rigged voting machines were used in Colorado. Had they not been, Gov. Mitt Romney would have scored a devastating victory over Obama in Colorado. Just using the 10 counties in Colorado that voted over 100%, Obama picked up 690,030 nonexistent votes. In an honest election, Romney won the State 1,125,391 to Obama's 548,450 votes. The 690,030 votes Obama gained from vote fraud in Colorado was more than the votes he actually won.

What in the world is wrong with the people of Colorado? One man and the social progressive labor unions in the United States who have united behind Obama, decided the will of the people was not as sufficient to bar Obama from holding the office he did not legally win in 2008, but more important was not entitled, by birth, to even seek. (And even though Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio proved,with enough evidence to convinced a jury in any court in the land, that Obama stole the birth certificate of a baby named Virginia Sunahara who was born on Aug. 4, 1961 and died less than 24 hours later, there are several federal judges who need to be removed from the bench and tried for treason and malfeasance. Each of those judges need to be sentenced and imprisoned for violating the right of those who were denied a redress of their grievances under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution since those grievances must be adjudicated through the courts. Every challenge of Obama has been stymied by the federal judiciary.)

In 2011 after vote fraud caused the Republicans to lose several seats in Congress in 2010, and vote fraud in Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas) during a one hour blackout saved Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's seat. Reid, who was trailing Sharron Angle when the blackout began, was leading when the lights came back on. (I'm still wondering, when there's no electricity feeding the voting machines, how did they manage to tally electronic votes during a blackout?)

Most skeptics in Clark County believe the Service Employees International Union [SEIU] Local 1107, which lost their contract to service voting machines in Clark County in 2008, (but kept it due to a loophole in contract) still controlled the keys to machines in 2010, rigged the elections of 2008, 2010 and 2012. SEIU was awarded the contract by Rory Reed, who was the Chairman of the Clark County Commission. When SEIU's contract expired, the Commission did not renew it, but Reid kept them from giving the contract to anyone else. (Note: nobody in the Clark County Commission seems to know who serviced the voting machines in Las Vegas in 2012, and who, if anyone, has been awarded the contract to service the voting machines in Clark County. You can imagine the warm, fuzzy feeling I got knowing the voters of Nevadans were in such capable hands.)

Based in part on the perceived vote fraud in 2006, 2008 and 2010, 35 States advanced photo ID legislation that scared the left enough that the Voting Rights Institute of the Democratic National Committee, together with the NAACP, the ACLU and Obama's Attorney General began suing States to "protect" the rights of all voters by making sure that voters were not required to produce State-issued photo ID card to prove they were who they claimed to be. Somehow the left thought this was a form of discrimination. Several leftwing judges agreed with them. Of the 35 States who tried to get the legislation through their State legislatures and get the bills signed into law by the governor, only 17 States got their Photo ID bills through the legislature and onto the governor's desk. Fourteen states actually enacted voter photo ID laws.

In their effort to stop the legislation, the DNC's Voting Rights Institute built their argument on two States which already had voter photo ID laws: Indiana and Georgia. Democrats estimated the cost to implement the laws in those two states and used their estimate as the real time cost to estimate the cost to the taxpayers in the 17 States pushing Photo ID bills through their legislatures. The Democrats collectively guessed the cost to implement Voter ID for those 17 States at $276 million, but raised their guesstimate to $828 million to make the law seem much more costly to the taxpayers.

The Voting Rights Institute numbers were sheer hocus pocus because the only people who would be in need of a voter ID card were those citizens who, for one reason or another, did not have a State-issued drivers' license and a Voter's Registration Card (which is supplied free of charge by the State when you apply for a driver's license or Non-driver Identification Card. It may be that the Democrats misunderstood the purpose of the card and thought multiple voter ID card might be needed by minority voters who generally vote multiple times at several different voting precincts each election.) Of course, since its now much easier to jury-rig the electronic voting machine, the left no longer needs to pay street urchins to vote multiple times for cigarettes or cheap wine—and risk being caught and prosecuted and, worse, reveal the names and affiliations of those who doled out the gratuities.

In 59 voting precincts in Philadelphia Romney appeared not to get a single vote. The voter turnout for Obama was 108%. In Guilford County, NC all of the voting machines defaulted in favor of Obama. One woman complained to Fox News that it took her three times before she was finally able to vote for Romney. When Fox News called the Guilford County election officials, the Election Chairman dismissed the problem telling Fox News that it's "...related to the machines not being calibrated correctly..." adding that "...it's an easy problem to fix." Strangely, Guilford County had the same problem in 2008. An almost universal default problem favoring Obama. Four years later the problem still existed. It would have been an easy problem to fix if the Democratic election committee wanted it fixed. But, fixing the problem was the last thing they wanted. To them, the system was working just fine.

Add to that the second election scam perpetuated by Obama—which the media failed to report. It was far worse than the first. It was an election fraud that cannot go unpunished. Because, in this instance, the Obama Campaign not only stole the 2012 election by creating votes from nothing electronically they also, very surreptitiously, stole the votes of actual Republican voters in several of the battleground States,

Had those votes been rightly cast, they would have flipped the election to Romney. In an agreement between both parties, Democrats and Republicans alike gave themselves the right to data-mine confidential information about the voting patterns of the party faithful. Who early-voted. Who voted on election day. This allowed precinct workers to stay in contact with early voters until they voted and, as election day approached, check with those who always vote on Election Day and to make sure they had rides to their voting places.

Only the Democrats took data-mining one giant step beyond legal. The Democrats, who should not have even had access to their own party's voting information somehow gained access to GOP voting information—specifically the names and addresses of every registered Republican who traditionally voted on Election Day in the battleground States. Or rather, in the battleground States that were successfully sued in federal court to stop voters from being required to show a photo ID before they could vote.

Because the precinct workers could not ask for a photo ID to verify that the voter was who he said he was, it appears from complaints in Ohio and Pennsylvania that Democrats stole over 6 million votes from politically active GOP voters by early-voting people who always voted on Election Day. In doing so, they denied thousands of Republican voters their constitutional right to vote by literally stealing from them the most valuable asset every American possesses—the right to vote.

When the "election day voters" arrived at their precincts to cast their vote for Romney they were denied a ballot because, it turned out, they—or someone claiming to be them—had already voted for Obama. The thieves, and a very complicit liberal media, no longer bother covering their theft. They ignore the accusations and use federal power to quash any investigation of wrongdoing.

This is the stuff you see in poorly scripted movies. This doesn't happen in real America. Or rather, before Obama this never happened in real America—at least not to the degree used by Obama. Rampant vote theft started under Bill Clinton with the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, or as it's more commonly known, The Motor Voter Act: the proverbial election sleight-of-hand that lets ineligible voters vote by creating three new classifications of voters: [a] nonexistent people, [b] long dead people and the newest social progressive constituency [c] illegal aliens.

In early 1996 a Chicago alderman wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton urging the White House to implement an accelerated naturalization program "...to provide Democrats with a strategic advantage..." in winning seat back the seats they lost in 1994. Clinton issued an Executive Order and granted instant citizenship to over 1.1 million illegals. In August, 1996 as the "new" citizens received a letter from President Clinton congratulating the fast-tracked illegals on becoming citizens, and advising them to make sure they voted Democratic since if Republicans kept Congress their citizenship would be vacated.

On Sept. 10, 1996 a US House Subcommittee held hearings on allegations that several of the firms certified by the INS to test the English proficiency of applicants for citizenship (before any applicant for naturalization can be granted citizenship in the United States, they must be proficient in English. Congress learned that the majority of the 1996 applicants could not speak English. The subcommittee also released a memo from Vice President Al Gore. In the memo, Gore said: "The INS warned us that if we are too aggressive at removing the roadblocks to citizenship...we might be publicly criticized for running a pro-Democratic voter mill."

That was because that's precisely what he was doing. Gore initiated "Citizenship USA" in 1995, promising new applicants naturalization within 90 days. This is a process that traditionally takes a year or more since all applicants must speak English fluently. That went to the wayside in 1996 when the numbers suggested that just about anyone could beat Clinton.

On Sept. 23, 1996 several INS officials testified before Congress that the Department of Immigration and Naturalization Service were granting citizenship to illegals who had committed crimes in the United States. One INS agent testified that around 60 thousand immigrants naturalized in August, 1996 in a mass ceremony in Los Angeles had criminal records. The Clinton White House insisted the number was misleading because, in many cases, the crimes committed by the new citizen were violations of immigration law.

Now you've seen how the immigration mill works, and when it started. You will also note that violating immigration law is a Democratic crime—and it is a crime. You also have had a birdseye view of how the community organizer in the White House "won" the elections of 2008 and 2012. And, yes, both of those elections were also a crime. And, you've also had a chance to examine the attempts by the liberal media to tidy-up the reasons why the Republicans lost the Election of 2012. That "gamesmanship" by the Obama Campaign was also a crime. The theft of the votes of around 6 million Election Day Republican voters in the Battleground States was also a crime. A very serious crime.

The mindless war-of-words waged by the self-proclaimed "brains" of the right against the not-quite-so-far-right right is not a crime. It's sheer stupidity that borders on intellectual criminality that lends credence to the "there's-only-one-party-in-town" crowd because when the right and the left is singing out of the same hymnal, the voters are forced to wonder. Because if the "right" is really "left," then there is no right left in Washington.

It seems, whether the political action committee leaders are Republicans or Democrats, they all use the same talking points when it comes to elections. Romney (or insert whatever GOP candidate's name you like) lost because the Republican Party is not inclusive enough. Or, Republicans are too antiabortion, or too anti-gay rights. Or, the GOP is opposed to amnesty. Had Romney (or insert whatever GOP candidate;s name you like) offered a program for Hispanics (always centered on amnesty), minority rights, or women's rights (but never just "American rights," then Obama would not have pulled an 11th hour victory in 2012. Of course, we now know there was no "11th hour victory," only an "11th hour theft."

It's important to burst the bubble of the self-proclaimed media guru of the right, Brent Bozell, the founder of Media Research Center who claims to be the media watchdog of the right. If the scenario that played out above is true, why did MRC not see something that, from the middle of November, 2009 until December 10, 2009, was in plain sight on WhiteHouse.gov as well as in plain sight on www.fec.gov? There were 35,626,580 more votes in 2008 than there were voters. And, in 2012, that there were 36,292,841 more votes than voters. And, how were Democrats able to steal over 6 million votes from constitutionally-registered Republican voters by early voting them in States where the Democrats won court cases vacated laws which required voters to show proof of ID before being given the right to vote someone else's ballot? Where was Media Research Center? Making speeches blaming Mitt Romney and Karl Rove for the Republican defeat in 2012.

MRC should have been blaming the "never-watchful" eye of the mainstream media for failing to reveal the vote theft that everyone knew was so rampant in 2008—well before 2012. When the liberal media in 2009 said no one could ever steal enough votes to win an election, the anchor stone of conservative media, MRC, should have had the data to disprove their claim. Media Research Center never addressed the issue with hard facts. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing a MRC "soft facts rebuttal." In fact, I never heard Bosell or any of his people refute the statement in any manner. Why is it that bloggers were tripping all over the information in the blogsphere, but the statement Media Research Center couldn't find any evidence of vote fraud wrongdoing?

MRC had an obligation to sift through the "Obama transparency" and produce the evidence to show the federal courts why voters must be required to produce a photo ID to prove they are who they claim to be. Nine States survived the Voting Rights Institute lawsuits. Those States require voters to carry a photo ID to prove they were who they claimed to be.

In the aftermath of both thefts of a national election through vote fraud, we didn't hear MRC screaming about 35-plus million too many votes in 2008 and 36-plus million more votes than voters in 2012. What we heard was Bozell blaming the candidates and not the thieves. "The days of conservatives listening to the moderate GOP establishment are over. Their idea of the most 'electable' presidential candidate was Mitt Romney, and before him John McCain, and before him, Bob Dole. And, we have all seen the results. The moderate GOP establishment record in Senate races last year was abysmal. Every single one of their candidates lost. We don't need a second Democratic Party in Washington..."

What Bozell and Media Research Center should have been doing between 2009 and 2012 was leading the fight to get rid of every electronic voting machine in the country, and restore integrity to our electoral process—paper ballots and #2 pencils. Bozell has the muscle to put some real legs under a real restore honest elections movement. By the way, once you get honest elections you get honest office-seekers—who can win. That happens when honest media watchdogs put enough pressure on the princes of industry-controlled mainstream media to demand that campaign contributions be outlawed, and the giving and taking of legal bribes is criminalized—with mandatory prison sentences.

It amazes me how none the wanabee leaders of the so-called conservative movement have enough savvy about the American political process to understand what happened in 2008 and 2012. If they did, they would have realized that had Gen. George Washington been the Republican presidential nominee in either 2008 or 2012, and Gov. Ronald Reagan his running mate, they would have lost not because they are out-of-touch with the 21st century political mindset, but because the thieves who controlled the media also manipulated the results of an electronic voting system that was surreptitiously created over the past two decades to finally achieve precisely the type of fraud—and the results—that happened in 2008 and 2012. If it's not changed now you will never see anyone except a social progressive elected President of the United States.

The ACLU and the NAACP, together with the Obama Justice Department, filed lawsuits against the States who enacted Voter ID laws, alleging that the ID laws were intended to make it difficult for minorities to vote when the laws were enacted specifically to prevent from happening what ultimately happened—millions of voters had their voter-identities stolen because precinct officials were prevented by federal judges from verifying the early voter identifications of people claiming to be registered Republicans who always vote on Election Day. An Obama-appointed chief judge in Northern Ohio took over a lawsuit filed in Cincinnati (in the Southern District) to vacate Ohio's newly enacted photo voter ID law. Since the court could not find anything detrimental in the law, the best the judge could do was postpone its enforcement until 2014, theoretically to give non-drivers enough time to secure a photo ID. But all the Northern Ohio US District Court judge who usurped the authority of the Southern Ohio judge did was give Obama time to steal the votes of Republican voters in Ohio. The same thing happened in Pennsylvania. The theft of those votes which belonged to Ohio Republican votes, and early voted by Democrats. Obama owes his win in Ohio to that judge. I guess Obama got what he paid for. Compliance—and complicity.

Six million registered voters lost their voice in the Election of 2012 because laws requiring voters to show proof of identification were reversed or postponed by federal judges who, constitutionally, had no legal authority to change State voting law requirements. What use is having a mainstreamsocial progressive free press that's protected by the Constitution if it's working for the crooks?