- Begin Excerpt
-
-
- Next week's election has dozens of races too close to
call and none are more symbolic and important that Republican and Tea Part
challenges to the Democratic leaders of both House and Senate. Senator
Harry Reid's election is in serious doubt in Nevada, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi
is also at risk. This week's early voting in Nevada produced a glimpse
into the presence of electronic voting irregularities--"glitches"
that are indicative of underlying coding that allows sophisticated hackers
to alter the results just enough to tilt the votes in favor of a losing
candidate. As Joseph Stalin said "It not the people who vote that
matter....it's the people who count the votes that matter." As we
pointed out in last week's brief, the programming for a new online voting
program had flaws that could be hacked and manipulated to alter the results.
While the press focuses on amateur hackers, the real problem is government
employing programmers to manipulate the results.
-
-
- Fox News detailed some of the complaints that were happening
in Nevada (where both the Democrats and Republicans are heavy controlled
by the establishment and have a history of intervening to control votes):
-
-
- "Some voters in Boulder City complained on Monday
that their ballot had been cast before they went to the polls, raising
questions about Clark County's electronic voting machines. Voter Joyce
Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic
opponent, Sen. Harry Reid's name was already checked. Ferrara said she
wasn't alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several
others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.
-
-
- "Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said
there is no voter fraud... [and] claims that machines were altered in any
way were 'patently false.' He said at no time did any of those voters report
the incident to staff at their polling location."
-
-
- Actually, with sophisticated programming, it would not
be possible for any official to know if there were a program imbedded in
a computer to slightly alter the votes--and it can be done without any
detection unless a parallel paper trail is produced that is independent
of any computer. Many states, including Nevada have electronic voting machines
that have a paper printout that you review before you finish, but only
guarantees that the computer correctly inputted what you desired. It is
no guarantee that the numbers processed later on will not be altered. Officials
always take the word of the company who provides the machines, that there
are no backdoor scripts to change the results. Can the companies be trusted?
That is doubtful given that every major voting machine company like Diebold
has connections with high government officials.
-
-
- And, it wasn't only Nevada. This was reported in North
Carolina: "Sam Laughinghouse of New Bern said he pushed the button
to vote Republican in all races, but the voting machine screen displayed
a ballot with all Democrats checked. He cleared the screen and tried again
with the same result (proving he didn't just push the wrong button), he
said. Then he asked for and received help from election staff."
-
-
- Here's what I think is going on. With the advent of exit
polling, vote count manipulators are limited in how many votes they can
alter. I would estimate that they can only get away with a 5-8% manipulation
of votes before showing a significant discrepancy with exit polling--which
is pretty accurate since several independent groups do the surveying. But
that little percentage is enough to change the results in a close race.
-
-
- The particular issues the vote complainants are mentioning
are just the kinds of tricks electronic vote programmers do to alter the
results. In past years, when electronic vote machines were just starting,
a few county's machines took all those that voted straight Republican and
switched them to straight Democrat. They didn't do that to all machines
across the board, only enough to change the results, so that if caught,
they could claim it was an "isolated glitch."
-
-
- When such a program is working in the background, there
are technical issues that can sometime cause the results to show up on
the monitor that the voter is looking at, as happened in the N. Carolina
example. But this was probably a glitch that only happened once--sufficient
to allow the voting monitors to dismiss it as an anomaly.
-
-
- The programming of these machines today is more sophisticated
than those in the early years. Now, they can load in programs that are
preprogrammed to produce a certain result in favor of any number of candidates
(but they usually only select one or two critical races), and will only
adjust the number of votes necessary to assure that outcome as the vote
is progressing. They can even do this AFTER the machine has confirmed the
voter's real preference on a paper receipt, but before sending the tally
on to the computers at state election headquarters. They can also program
this software to erase itself after its done it's work, so forensic programmers
can't trace them. Other programs could work only at the state level by
altering the results coming in from the counties. Nothing is foolproof
when it comes to electronic voting.
-
-
-
- The Courts are also trying to help skew the vote by the
registration process: Another incredibly bad ruling came down in Arizona
this week. Dylan Smith of the Tucson Sentinel reports: An Arizona law requiring
proof of citizenship to register to vote was struck down Tuesday by a federal
appeals court because it conflicts with the U.S. National Voter Registration
Act.
-
-
- "The case, Gonzalez v. Arizona, 08-17094, was decided,
2-1, by a three judge panel that included former Supreme Court Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor [still called in to work on issues critical to the
PTB]. O'Connor was joined by Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, while Chief Judge
Alex Kozinski dissented on the decision to not require proof of citizenship.
The court upheld the requirement to show identification at the polls."
--The latter was a token allowance considering that many people who are
not citizens or eligible to vote already have drivers' licenses.
-
-
- Basing this decision on the National Voter Registration
Act presumed the act was constitutional, which it is not. This act, also
known as the Motor Voter Act, was passed in 1993 specifically to make it
easier for illegal aliens to vote. The law allows voters to register when
applying for a driver's license or social services, and allowed for more
accessible voter registration through standardized mail-in forms--where
it is easier to evade the issue of citizenship.
-
-
- Incredibly, "The court held that Arizona's requirement
of proof of citizenship violated the federal statute, which lays out what
states may and may not require to register to vote. While voters may have
to attest to their citizenship [meaning swear that they are citizens],
requiring documentary proof falls outside the law, the court said."
How can they claim with a straight face that requiring documentation is
somehow a threat to the affirmation process? In fact, it only confirms
the affirmation process. If documentation is forever enjoined, how does
any state then check to see if the sworn declaration is valid? -Catch "22"
-
-
- [Hypocritically] "Calling the state's arguments
a 'creative interpretation,' the Ninth Circuit said 'states must 'accept
and use' the Federal Form as a fully sufficient means of registering to
vote in federal elections." Now THAT'S creative interpretation! In
point of law, the court should have ruled that the federal law is an usurpation
of the states rights to determine voter eligibility-which can only be done
efficiently at the state level anyway.
-
-
-
- Worldnetdaily.com pointed out that some states still
don't require anyone to show identification at the polls--more room for
fraud. "You have to show valid picture I.D. in California to rent
a movie, cash a check, get on an airplane or get a senior discount at restaurants
- but not to vote. To register to vote in California, all you have to do
is fill out a simple form with name and address and affirm, 'under penalty
of perjury,' that you are a citizen of the United States and therefore
eligible to vote. No prosecution for perjury on the registration form has
been taken in living memory of any Californian." -nor could it be
under the current court interpretation.
-
-
- One very significant race: In Colorado's race for governor,
a third party candidate is way ahead of the official Republican. W. James
Antle III reports: "There's only one state where the Republican gubernatorial
candidate is polling in the single digits less than a week before the election
but conservatives remain hopeful that one of their own may yet prevail.
The colorful race for governor of Colorado has become a contest between
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a liberal Democrat, and former Congressman
Tom Tancredo. Tancredo served five terms as a Republican in the U.S. House
of Representatives and was an appointee in the administrations of Ronald
Reagan and George H.W. Bush [Probably, the primary reason why he is able
to be so far ahead in this race--he is viewed by most as a Republican-and
they dislike the Republican nominee, who is way too establishment for conservatives].
-
-
- "Today, however, Tancredo is running for governor
as the nominee of the American Constitution Party, Colorado's state affiliate
of the national Constitution Party. For weeks, polls have consistently
shown Tancredo in second place. A few have shown him nipping at the Democratic
front-runner's heels. The American Spectator said, they weren't just worried
that Tancredo would cost Republicans a chance at retaking the governorship.
They feared he would doom Republicans up and down the ballot. 'The
dispute between Tancredo and Maes could significantly undermine Republicans
throughout Colorado and, in fact, the nation.'
-
-
- "How quickly things change. Republicans have been
abandoning Maes in droves and endorsing Tancredo. And many conservatives
have been calling on the GOP standard-bearer to drop out of the race so
the third-party candidate can win." Maes won't drop out. For a liberal
Republican, having a Democrat in office is better than a constitutional
conservative.
-
-
- Speaking of dropping out, the story just broke yesterday
(by Politico.com) that Bill Clinton showed up in Florida to request that
US Senate Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek drop out of the race so that
Charley Crist could win. Liberal, pro-Gay Florida governor Charlie Crist
lost his primary bid in the Republican Party. Rather than accept his rejection
he was encouraged by the PTB to run as an independent--and this is their
final attempt to get him elected.
-
-
- Crist is denying that he had anything to do with it,
but this is a tactic that has been invoked before. Clinton made a similar
demand of Democratic candidate Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania who was running
in a primary against Sen. Arlen Specter (Republican Senator turned Democrat-again).
Sestak refused and Specter lost in the primary. But in Florida this week,
Meek refused to quit the race. Maybe Bill Clinton has lost his touch.
-
-
- The White House is denying that they are behind this
attempt to install Crist and work against a faithful member of their own
party. But, one thing is obvious: Crist is the preferred candidate of the
PTB and they desperately want to defeat as many of the Tea Party troublemakers
as they can. Rumors abound in Washington that Crist had agreed to caucus
with the Democrats in exchange for Meek dropping out--just like Sen. Joe
Lieberman of CT.
-
-
-
- The Lying Factor: Of course, there isn't enough room
to catalog the lies of candidates vying for public office--especially incumbents.
But, here's a great example: Nancy Pelosi claiming there will be "no
new debt" during her tenure. Terrence Jeffrey points out that "When
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the
House in 2007, she vowed there would be 'no new deficit spending.' Since
that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to
the U.S. Treasury Department. 'After years of historic deficits, this 110th
Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new
deficit spending,' Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker's podium.
'Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations,
not burden them with mountains of debt.'" One of many lies typical
of politicians who pander to what's right but blatantly disregard it when
in office.
-
-
- Just as bad was Timothy Geithner's claim this week that
"We will not do it" -referring to inflating the dollar. Really?
Can he really say this with a straight face? Doug Hornig, Senior Editor,
of Casey Research has the story: "Geithner was speaking ahead of this
weekend's meeting of G-20 finance leaders in South Korea, at which currency
issues are, well, likely to be discussed. Addressing the Commonwealth Club
of California in Silicon Valley, the government's money man did not mince
his words, no sir. 'It is very important for people to understand that
the United States of America and no country around the world can devalue
its way to prosperity, to (be) competitive,' Geithner solemnly swore. And
he added, 'It is not a viable, feasible strategy and we will not engage
in it.'
-
-
- "This was a pretty big step for Tiny Tim to take.
He has (perhaps understandably) been reluctant to sound the alarm for the
strong dollar in public, and has not done so since February." Of course
no one believed him and that has led many countries to complain that Fed
money creation is weakening the dollar, causing more funds to flow into
their markets, and pushing up the local medium of exchange. No one, it
appears, wants a strong currency at the moment.... Oh, except us. Washington
to the rescue. The U.S., Geithner swore, will 'work hard to preserve confidence
in the strong dollar.' Mmmmm... which side of that bet do you
want to take...?" Indeed.
-
-
- The News Factor in Elections: We all know the mainstream
news is biased towards government power and its globalist intervention
agenda. It is a major factor in controlling public perception during elections.
Fewer still realize that the presumed "conservative" Fox News
channel is also controlled by the PTB in a different way. The owner, globalist
Rupert Murdoch, is no conservative. His prime commentators (with the exception
of Glenn Beck) are trying to steer conservatives toward controlled Republican
candidates like Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee.
-
-
- National Public Radio, claims to be neutral but is very
liberal. However, in the wake of the firing of NPR's Juan Williams for
stating his sincere fear about being on an airplane when Muslim men in
Muslim garb get on board, we have another chance to scrutinize public funding
of the news-which should stop, including the government subsidies to individual
public radio stations.
-
-
- In turns out that NPR CEO Vivian Schiller is
behind the push to have government eventually take over and control all
news. Tara Servatius of Townhall.com explains: "As Schiller explained
in a speech to the NPR board of directors in 2009, it is public radio's
responsibility to fill the gap in journalism left by dying local television
stations and newspapers. Schiller, a former New York Times executive, is
one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free
Press to 'reinvent journalism,' is [promoting] a plan to take over local
news coverage from for-profit television, radio and print media, which
Schiller and her friends claim is in danger of extinction [partially true].
These 'friends' get together regularly with the heads of the FCC and FTC
to brainstorm the details in government and congressional meetings. These
meetings include the leaders of all the country's public broadcasting outlets,
including PBS, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and American Public
Media." --Another conspiracy afoot? It looks that way.
-
-
- End Excerpt
-
-
- World Affairs Brief - Commentary And Insights On
A Troubled World.
-
- Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution
permitted.
-
- Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief www.worldaffairsbrief.com
|
