he campaign of 2012 has apparently officially begun because the mainstream media is already anointing the primary GOP presidential nomination players and spoilers. Expect about nine of them to announce before they get through. Conspicuously absent from the latest media list thus far is the one candidate with the bonafides to beat Barack Hussein Obama in an honest primary season—former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney—who has already officially thrown his hat into the ring although he seldom appears on any journalist's wanabee list for the White House. Romney , who officially stepped into the presidential ring on April 8, 2011, had already promised that he will repeal Obamacare on his first day in office. Yet, the media circus continues with the anointing of the right by the left solely to dilute the vote-getting of the most-electable candidate specifically so the left can beat the right in the general election.

"Media-nominated" thus far is 2012's "designated loser"—Newton Leroy McPherson. You know him as former House Speaker (and Fox News contributor) Newt Gingrich. Gingrich's mother, 16-year old Kathleen "Kit" Daugherty, endured a three-day marriage to 19-year old Newton Searles McPherson. His mother later married Robert Gingrich, who adopted Newt. The cast of "players" for the 2012 GOP nomination must begin with "The Donald" not because he is the best choice for the job, but because Donald Trump is good "circus." And, he was the only candidate with the guts to raise the question that Congress should have been asking of Barack Obama, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—under subpoena to a federal grand jury. Where's the birth certificate? As it turned out, "The Donald" focused enough attention on the Obama birth certificate issue that the media finally began asking the question Trump brought to the table: why has Obama not only refused to present his long form Certificate of Live Birth, but why would he spend $2 million to keep it concealed? Or is this birth certificate an artful creation of current Hawaiian governor and Obama buddy, Neil Abercrombie who has the executive authority in Hawaii to simply order it into existemce?

On April 27, 2011, Obama released a Hawaiian State Birth Registrar file copy of his long form birth certificate. His action may well killed two birds (or more) with one stone. First are the Wiley Drake v Obama and Alan Keyes v Obama cases before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California on Mon., May 2. The plaintiffs are asking the court to force Obama to produce his long form birth certificate. Those actions are now mute since Obama has done precisely that. It is now up to Obama's detractors to show that Obama's long form birth certificate did not exist prior to Abercrombie assuming office. Second, it may have ended the reason for conservative Republicans to support a Bloomberg Republican-turned-Independent-turned-Republican Donald Trump for the GOP nomination since that is what triggered his popularity.. Or, it may have made him an even stronger candidate since Trump appears to have done something the entire GOP—with the Tea Party thrown in—were unable to do. Make Obama reveal his secrets. If Trump wants to stay in the race, he needs to start demanding Obama's school records—and his US, Kenyans and Indonesian passports. But, even more, he needs to get a hair makeover because a guy with a proverbial "bad hair day" will never win the White House.

In addition, when you look at Obama's long form birth certificate, you will notice its Registrar's birth certificate number is 151-61-10641. Why is that important? Keep in mind that Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961. A day later, in the same hospital, twins were born. Susan and Gretchen Nordyke. Susan was born at 2:12 p.m. on Aug. 5, 1961. Her Certificate number was 151-61-10637. Gretchen was born at 2:17 p.m. Her Certificate number is 151-61-10638. Both were filed on Aug. 11. Obama, born a day before them, has a higher Birth Certificate number, 61-10641. Tht literally cannot happen. Why?

Because Susan Nordyke, born a day later than Obama was the 10,637th birth in Honolulu for the year 1961. Her sister Gretchen, was the 10,638th. Yet, Obama, born a day earler, was the 10,641st birth. What's wrong with that picture? Keep in mind that all births, live or still born, are recorded as "births." An unnamed, stillborn baby born, two births after the Nordyke twins, would not be missed by anyone if the record of that event vanished from the Registrar's birth archive. That's one more question The Donald could ask as he courts the American voter for their vote.. Only, this question will not be answered, nor will the mainstream media pursue it.

The Donald might look like he's on his way out of the campaign because he is pulling only about 7% in straw polls, but don't count him out, yet. While Trump may not have the pocket change to finance his presidential race as the GOP nominee, Trump, like Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, Jr. can finance his own primary campaign.

While Trump would very much like to be the President of the United States, one is forced to wonder if there is another agenda at play here, and The Donald's purpose is not to win anything, but to act as the catalyst to bring Obama's birth certificate issue into the mainstream in order to dispose of it once and for all?

A man—Obama—who spent over $2 million to shield the records of his birth is not going to simply produce it without a 10 thousand volt cattle prod goosing him. Was Trump that orchestrated cattle prod?

The other potential players in the GOP cast of characters includes Fox News host and 2008 presidential nomination spoiler Mike Huckabee who may or may not join the fray, and spoiler-designate; Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty whose seesawing back and forth as he looks for a bagman to get him through the primaries makes it look like he's not sure he wants to stay and play. Pawlenty wants to play—but can he afford to stay? He needs the price of admission, which he does not have. Nor does he have the family wealth to finance his own campaign. The money men, who always expect something very tangible in return for their donations—even when they agree to finance the spoilers, know Pawlenty may be a nice guy, but he's a 2% vote-getter. For campaign backers, there just isn't a good enough payday for them at the end of the race to throw away too many dollars on a Pawlenty bid. Make no mistake about it. Pawlenty will get the ante to play, but not enough to win. But then, he's not supposed to win. Pawlenty is basically on a "scrapbook quest." A few memories and campaign mementos for his grandkids.

It's important to understand as you look at the cast of players, the herd of politicians in the 2012 stampede for the gold ring are not there to actually win the nomination. They may not even realize it, but they are running to make sure that no true conservative wins the GOP nomination. If you need it even more clear, here it is—they are there specifically to dilute the conservative vote enough that the 15% of the vote that Newt Gingrich will pull in the primaries will be enough to win the nomination—just as the ten candidates vying for the GOP nomination in 2008 were there to dilute the vote that would have easily nominated Mitt Romney in a two or three man race. Okay, now that we understand the rules, and how the game is played, let's look at the other players.

We have the 5% to 10% spoiler-designates who are worth the investment—Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Pennsylvania US Senator Rick Santorum, spoiler-designate; Tea Party faves, South Carolina Sen. Jim Demint (if he jumps into the ring) and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann; and New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and former GOP veep-candidate Sarah Palin. And, finally, we have Dr. Ron Paul who talks like a candidate but who has said, as late as the middle of April, that while he is still considering a run, he has not decided. Dr. Paul, who is a veteran in the race for the roses, knows when there are too many horses at the gate none of them win.

Before the 2010 midterm election, Palin was my hands-down favorite as the potential running mate for Mitt Romney although, constitutionally, she cannot run and, if elected, she cannot serve. When she campaigned for globalist Sen. John McCain whose US Senate seat was threatened by former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, Palin lost my vote—and my support. When you can't tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys—or don't care, you have sold your soul to the establishment political circus. Regardless of your intentions, you have joined the bad guys. (But then, in 1980, a guy named Ronald Reagan did the same thing and it did not soil him. History will forever recall him as the president who ended the Cold War.)

And, finally, in the list of losers there is millionaire and former US Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Jr. who actually has the money, but not the public persona—nor support—to win the nomination, let alone the election. Huntsman must also be classified as a spoiler who will drain votes from the only candidate who actually has the bonafides to win against Obama. Huntsman, like Romney—who actually can win, is a Mormon.

Before continuing, it's important to remember that the office of President of the United States is not a theological position. Prior to the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960, American Protestants were wary of electing a Catholic to the highest office in the land out of fear that the Pope would become the defacto leader of the free world. Fear is a powerful gambit when used by the right people. The fear that the ghosts of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith would influence Romney kept the Christian community from backing Romney—until it became obvious that Sen. John McCain was going to take the 2008 Presidential nomination. Clearly, the pastoral community would have preferred that licensed pastor Mike Huckabee won the GOP nomination in 2008. Sadly, Huckabee, like 2008 designated loser John McCain, is an institutionalized politician who was already owned by the establishment political hierarchy.

His job, in the primary of 2008 was to stay in the race and drain enough votes from Mitt Romney to assure McCain's victory. When Romney dropped out, Huckabee's job was done. He stayed in the race, trying to snag enough delegates to force McCain to put him on the GOP ticket as his running mate. McCain, however, needed a candidate who would guarantee his loss, not his win.

That's why he picked a "newbie" governor with no political credentials who was one year into a 4-year term, and whose whose political value could not be measured. Had McCain not been on the ticket, Palin would easily have been elected President of the United States, creating an Article II crisis for the Republicans instead of the Democrats. Just as Article II constitutionally requires that the candidate for President of the United States be a natural born citizen of the United States, it also requires that the President be a man. Thus, Palin, Bachmann and Hillary Clinton cannot constitutionally seek the office, nor hold it if elected. Nor, for that matter, can they constitutionally seek the office of Vice President since that job is one heartbeat from the Oval Office. (Click on the previous sentence and the hyperlink will take you to the 2007 reprint of my 2004 article on this subject.)

Since McCain knew his job was to lose to Barack Obama he needed to make sure his running mate was an unknown element who would not enhance the ticket. In other words, because McCain knew he was running for reelection to the Senate in 2010, he needed to make sure the voters in Arizona did not blame him for his loss in 2008. Palin would be assigned the blame.

When McCain announced that he had picked the gun-toting governor of America's northernmost State as his running mate, his popularity ratings soared enough to impact Obama's polling numbers. Immediately, the Obama Campaign took their sights off McCain and launched a full scale attack against Palin. The chinks in her armor, however, came from the right, not the left. From the moment the election was over, the GOP did precisely that—hey blamed her the loss.

In the end, the McCain-Palin ticket took 59,934,814 votes. The official tally for the Obama-Biden team was 69,456,897. The problem with those numbers did not surface for about six or eight months. Even though the election numbers were posted on the FEC website since November, 2008, no one seemed to notice the inconsistency. When I reported it on Nov. 28, 2009, the FEC results posted on the White House website vanished virtually overnight. So did the same chart from the FEC website. Based on the numbers this website extracted from the FEC-White House charts, 132,618,580 votes were counted—even though only 96,992,000 registered voters cast votes in the Election of 2008. There were 35,626,580 votes too many in the ballot boxes across the nation.

With two major red flags signaling an imperative need for a "time-out" in the validation of the Election of 2008 before the Electoral College cast their votes for Barack Hussein Obama on Dec. 6, 2008, the electoral votes were cast without a whimper of protest on either count from the Republican Party which had to know that there were over 35 million too many votes in the ballot boxes across the country—and more than a few questions about not only whether or not Barack Hussein Obama was a natural born American citizen—but whether or not he was even a citizen of the United States. (You may think Obama's presenting his long form birth certificate resolves the citizenship issue. Obama does. So does the media. But for once, tthe media, which lobs only softabll questions at Obama, needs to pitch at least one hardball question at him (but don't expect MSNBC host Chris Matthews to be the one pitching it). The question is: if Obama had a long form birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii, why would he spend over $2 million to keep everyone—the media included—from seeing it? Particularly since McCain (who was born in Panama) produced his birth certificate. In the past, every candidate for the office of President whose birthright was questioned, produced it. When the man who promises to be the most transparent President in histroy becomes the most opaque President in history, the American people have cause for concern.

But most troubling of all is the fact that not only did the hierarchy of the Republican Party not raise a question before the election, they remain mute until today in the face of mounting evidence—and Obama's $2 million obfuscation to conceal the truth about his past—that Obama is not what he claims to be. What also needs to be answered by him is why a man who has the birth certificate needed to secure a Social Security number would use not one, but 28 different social security numbers that appear not to have been assigned to him by the Social Security system.

What does that say about our electoral system? It says the system is as corrupt as those in charge of comparing the total number of votes cast with the number of ballots in the ballot box; or in vetting the constitutionally-mandated qualifications of those who wish to seek the office of President because those who don't play by the rules make the rules. Very clearly what happened in 2008—and since—is telling. If the American people were really listening, it would have told them that far above street level politics there exists a cabal so powerful that with the spoken word, kings, premiers and presidents tremble, and political careers are made—or ended. And where elected officials agree to play the pimp and prostitute themselves to enhance their political careers and personal fortunes.

Understanding the new "rules" is the first step in defeating the system and returning control of the electoral system to the People. The first rule is to understand the rules. And, that's the hardest rule to understand because under the first rule, only Democrats and Republicans can get elected. Rule 1(a) changes the ground rules for third party candidates (i.e., spoilers) and for primary party candidates who are inserted into the primaries or into the general election specifically to drain votes from the "designated loser" to guarantee the "contributions" the cabal of industrialists and bankers invested in the "designated winner" were not spent in vain.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the outcome of the presidential elections are fixed as best they can be with the voters being the only uncertainty. Its been that way since 1912. That's why the money barons have no qualms about cheating. In fact, the left enacted laws that let them cheat—legally—under the guise of "fairness." How does it work?

In 1993 the Democratically-controlled 103rd Congress enacted the National Voters' Act of 1993 and Bill Clinton, who clearly understood that piece of legislation was the only thing between his being reelected in 1996 or being a one term president, hurriedly signed it into law on May 20, 1993. The National Voters' Act, more commonly known as The Motor Voter Law, construed that anyone who applied for, and received a drivers' license in any State, was lawfully registered to vote—without the bothersome need to prove they were eligible. The Motor Voter Law had fraud written all over it.

The legislation should have brought a million angry taxpayers to Washington, DC demanding the law be repealed before it could be implemented. But the American people either failed to realize the sleight-of-hand that had just taken place, or were too apathetic to care. Before it's too late—if it's not too late already—the American people need to repeal The National Voters' Act and void every voter registration certification created since the law was passed, making every voter in the United States re-register to vote by producing a valid birth certificate—and evidence of residency. The national registration scheme to give voting rights to people who are not constitutionally eligible to vote in US elections was devised by Columbia University professor Richard Cloward. Cloward, who died in 2001, believed it would be possible to enact a law that would allow people who were legally ineligible to vote for a variety of reasons to gain voting rights tied to applying for a driver's license. Cloward was also convinced that people who lost their voting rights could be enticed with money to vote anyway—and vote for social progressive candidates who would otherwise never be able to get elected. He was right.

While Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994, a man who should have been a one-term president was reelected in 1996 with the help of several million resident aliens and illegal aliens who, beginning in 1993, were filing for citizenship. By June, 1995 the filings for naturalization were double the rate of the previous year, and they were increasing at a rapid rate. At the time, a senior White House official named Rahm Emanuel put together the framework of an idea to fast track both legal and illegal immigrants, by any means, to citizenship so they could vote for Democrats in 1996. The plot by the Clinton Administration in 1995 to legalize illegals and take back Congress in 1996 appeared in a July, 2000 Department of Justice Inspector General's report entitled "An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization and Naturalization Service's Citizen USA Initiative."

The report was an indictment not only of Clinton's interfering with the immigration naturalization process, but also his interfering with the process of creating new citizens. The Emanuel strategy was to create not just voters, but Democrat voters by indebting them to the Democratic Party for their US citizenship. The Emanuel strategy was used to help the Democrats in 1996, 1998 and 2000. In 2000, it came down to 225 votes in Broward and Palm Beach counties. In the end, George W. Bush prevailed—but only because the US Supreme Court told the Democratic-controlled voting precinct managers that because of the Electoral Vote Count Act of 1887 (3 USC 5), the Democrats in charge of counting the ballots in 85% of Florida's voting precincts could not change the rules on how votes were tabulated after the very first vote was cast. Since the States could no longer change the rules on how to count unvoted ballots, they realized they needed to get enough ballots, marked for the social progressive candidate, in the ballot boxes before the first ballot was officially cast on Election Day. The agents to get those ballots into the ballot boxes through Motor Voter registrations and the casting of absentee ballots in 2004, 2006 and 2008 were groups like MoveOn.org and A.C.O.R.N.

The fraud in 2008 was so substantial that the leftwing Project Vote put a piece up on their website analyzing the impact of new voters that year. AlterNet senior fellow Steven Rosenfeld noted that while Caucasian votes were down from 2004, nationally 3.5 million more people voted in 2008 than in 2004. Project Vote put the number of new voters in 2008 at 15.2 million, with 68.7% of them, or 10,382,000, voting for Barack Obama. Interestingly, Project Vote also said that "first time voters" were largely low income minorities and youths.

Rhetoric and political spin aside, according to Project Vote, there were 131,406,895 ballots counted in the 2008 election. The Federal Election Commission put that number at 132,618,580. What hasn't changed is the number of registered voters who voted—96,992,000. If you accept the Project Vote numbers, which ignored the number of registered voters who actually signed in at the polling places to vote, there were 34,469,895 more ballots in the ballot boxes across the nation than there were voters who voted them. Accept the FEC numbers (which vanished during the first week of December, 2009), there were 35,626,580 too many ballots in America's ballot boxes. The National Voting Rights Act of 1993 made that type of vote fraud possible. From that point on, the money barons had a vote chit to guarantee that their financial investment in the designated winner would not be lost.

In 2008, voting by mail for President of the United States began on Sept. 21—44 days before the election. It never ceases to amaze me that, in 1800 (the first election where the president and vice president ran as a team), all of the voters voted for the President of the United States on the same day—the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The voters rode on mules or horses to the nearest town to vote, sometimes taking a day or more to get there. Yet, today the voters—who take 15 minutes to a half hour to drive to the voting precinct in cars—seem to need 44 days to do the same thing.

Of course, there is only one obvious difference. In 1800, only 77,282 votes were cast in the Presidential election. And, for the apologists who think today's voters need 44 days to vote would be quick to remind me that, in 1800, the United States consisted of 13 states, the Northwest Territory (which became Ohio and the Indiana Territory) and the Southwest Territory (which became Tennessee), so there were considerably less voters; so, I guess, they could more easily vote in one day.

In the Election of 1912, we had a continental nation. Forty-eight states voted for President on Nov. 6, 1912. The vote casting for President took one day. Everyone who wanted to vote managed to vote. Why, all of a sudden, did we need more than one day to vote? We didn't. The only people who needed more than one day to vote were those who need extra time to fabricate the extra votes they needed to win, or retain power. There are approximately 31 million social progressives in the United States—or about 10% of the population. It takes 50.1% of the vote to win election. Do you see a question here? How does a 10% minority faction win a super majority in the House and Senate? Even more puzzling, how does a 10% minority faction win 69,456,897 votes from a universe of 96,992,000 voters who voted. Even more important, when reportedly, only 56.8% of the registered voters, or 96,992,000 eligible citizens voted, how do we end up counting 132,618.580 ballots?

It happens because our vote gathering and vote counting process can no longer be trusted. We need to get rid of every voting machine in the United States and return to the paper ballot. One ballot. One vote. Counted once—but counted.

Too many wealthy industrialists and bankers have too much money invested in the election to trust the judgment of the voters. We are letting the fox in the hen house 44 days before egg laying when no one is watching. Electronic voting machines, that answer to no one, are easily programmed to render whatever counts are desired without a vote—or a paper trail—leading to anyone. Motor Voter registrations and early voting without the necessary verification of the constitutional eligibility of the registrant taking place before handing that individual a ballot. Which, of course was the purpose of Motor Voter.

Now you understand how, a year to a year-and-a-half before a presidential election the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business feel confident that they have accurately categorized both the designated winner and the designated loser of the upcoming election, thereby protecting the hundreds of millions of dollars they contributed to manipulate the outcome of the national election. In the microcosmic photo finish race of 2000, socialist financier George Soros, who backed Al Gore, was the loser and socialist financier David Rockefeller was the winner. In 2008, from the New Hampshire primary on, both Soros and Rockefeller backed Obama.

Just as Sen. John McCain was the designated loser in 2008, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose liberal, globalist worldview is well known by conservatives, is the designated loser for 2012. The people have the ability, but not the know-how, to stop the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business's anointing of both a designated winner and a designated loser simply by rejecting their choices. They did it in 1980 when they rejected the money barons' designated winner, former Ambassador George H.W. Bush and picked their own candidate, California Governor Ronald Reagan. How did they do it? As a nation, the American people got behind one candidate: Reagan. They were not as fractionalized in 1980 as they were in 2008. But then, in 1980, the left was not as financially vested in backing fringe GOP candidates and voting for them in the GOP primaries. That's a Clinton-era happening.

Add to that the liberal blogs that appear around election time posing as Libertarian or constitutional-conservatives, endorsing their favorite "conservative," thus steering the voters away from usually the only candidate who can actually win the general election. In 2012—just like in 2008—the winnable candidate is Mitt Romney. Gingrich is the 15% spoiler and designated loser. The Donald strikes me as the 7% spoiler. He will do better in the primaries than Pawlenty, Huntsman, Daniels, Santorum, Johnson (and Jim Demint if he runs), but not better than Huckabee, Palin and Bachmann—since it appears his role as a spoiler is to spoil their chances to win by diluting their votes in order to throw the primaries to Gingrich. Newt's job it is to lose in November, 2012 to Obama, giving a man who should not have won the first time a second term.