[Editor's Note: I mentioned in my first radio interview with Don Nicoloff on November 27, 2007 that electronic voting machines allow any election to be rigged and without insisting on a paper ballot (or a return to mechanical, lever-style voting machines), there is no way to insure an honest election. Citizens must demand an end to electronic voting and insist on a paper ballot which can be hand counted-and re-counted as often as necessary...Ken Adachi].
By Joel Skousen,
Editor - World Affairs Brief
October 31, 2010
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.
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
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.