A Call to Action from Darren
Weeks
The push is on for computerized voting systems to be implemented
in the states by 2004.
As usual, the federal government is utilizing its usual "carrot and stick" approach to the states. They are offering the states millions of dollars to comply with their "mandates" to "revamp" the states' elections systems.
However, like most things that the federal government shoves upon the states, the cure will be worse than the disease.
According to a study (pdf format) by researchers at both John Hopkins, and Rice Universities, the electronic voting system manufactured by Diebold Incorporated is flawed to the point that it cannot be fixed.
We were already aware that this battle to take control of the nation's election system would heat up, following the orchestrated 2000 election crisis. As the seasoned student of the world controllers is aware, they always create the crisis to condition the American mind to the idea that change is needed, then they present their pre-determined solution to the crisis.
In this case, the crisis was the hanging, swinging, and double-punched chads, along with the butterfly ballots of the 2000 election. Creating this "crisis" facilitated the opportunity for the controllers to ask, Why are we still living in the dark ages, as far as the elections are concerned?
Newt Gingrich, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, December 24, 2000, spoke about the "need" for a revamped election system.
I've been asking audiences how many people pump gas and don't even uh get a receipt anymore. Because they're so certain that the data is accurate. And there are places you did that piece, I think, on Riverside, California where you now vote on the equivalent of an ATM machine, and it is stunningly more accurate.I think the federal government is going to have to, next year, help the states really go to a modern system of voting that matches that kind of accuracy, and not allow a state that doesn't have the money, or a county that doesn't have the money, or as you pointed out a neighborhood where people are getting the last machine from 28 years ago.
We as a country, by 2004, should have a modern, totally sophisticated voting system, that has a hundred percent accuracy uh and that is able to make the returns within seconds after the votes are in.
The plan was laid out in full view, back in 2000, by the phony conservative, Newt Gingrich.
As the Ruling Class always does, they orchestrated the crisis of the 2000 election, so they could make the case for revamping the election system. They passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in Congress, which authorized "grants" to be made to the states for the purposes of "revamping" their election systems.
As Jackie said, "U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (Dem - N.Y.) has promised to call an emergency committee to allocate funding to the states for this project at the turn of the year (2001). In return for the federal "gifts," the recipients would have to -- according to Jim Condit (Director of Citizens for a Fair Vote Count) -- use the system recommended by the gift-bearers. Think about it... every precinct in every county in every state using the same computers and counting systems leaving absolutely no trail to check the accuracy or honesty of the results. How easily, then, it would be for the programmers -- from a single source -- to insure that the outcomes of all elections would favor those who are 'approved' by the proponents of World Government."
This brings me back to my "carrot and stick" comment of earlier. The federal government is saying to the states, We all know the need for revamping the election systems in every state. That need was well-demonstrated during the last Presidential election. We know that no one wants to ever see that happen again in any state. We'll help you upgrade your election systems by allocating the funds. The only catch is that you must use the system that we designate.
There is no doubt in my mind, that the federal elections are already fully controlled. The people of the united States of America don't decide who the next president of their country will be. That decision is made months perhaps even years in advance behind closed doors, by spooks with only their own best interest in mind. Sadly, that interest is the advancement of an agenda for a one-world, socialist government.
And the level of control that these planners maintain over the citizenry which is already all-encompassing isn't enough for them. Their unquenchable lust for more power is an appetite that is insatiable. They must have it all.
Computerized voting will give them it all. Everything! From President to dog-catcher, they will decide who is elected to the county seat, who is elected to the townships, who is elected to state legislative offices, who is elected in the primaries. There will be no election that they will not, or cannot control. They will be the brokers of power, and the power will be theirs.
In 1996, Relevance editor, Philip M. OHalloran, wrote about the shady areas of the current computer-driven election results. In an article entitled, Pandora's Black Box: Did it really count your vote?, O'Halloran outlines the lack of scrutiny that the ballot-counting process receives, and how simple it would be to tamper with the results.
Quoting from O'Halloran's piece:
Could such an illegal scheme work on a national scale? In a rare major media treatment of this taboo subject on election eve in 1988, CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather asked Howard Strauss about the possibility of computer vote-rigging:Rather: Realistically, could the fix be put on a national election? Howard Strauss: Get me a job with the company that writes the software for this program. Then Id have access to one third of the votes. Is that enough to fix a general election?
[Note: Strauss was referring to the software employed in the most commonly-used vote-counting computer program at that time. Incidentally, one company now has access to over 50% of the votes.]
Strauss summed up the unverifiable nature of the system:
"When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards. Its not a door without locks, its a house without windows."
With regard to computerized election tabulations, there are many questions which demand answer: Who sanctions the company and personnel to write the code that will be used in the elections? Who oversees the process? Who inspects the code for errors and for signs of malfeasance? What potential conflicts-of-interest are represented in the authoring, overseeing, and inspection of such computer code? Who oversees the implementation and utilization of these software-driven counters? What are their interests? Who knows the answers to these questions? Is the process open to inspection by the average, every day American citizen? If not, why not? A process that operates within a shroud of secrecy, is likely a process that will serve as an incubator for corruption.
Why is this question of utmost importance at this time? Why is it necessary that we revisit the woes of the 2000 election, and question the methods of our nation's election system?
It is my fear, that while the people of America are distracted by the countless details of the "War on Terror," there is a greater battle taking place right here at home. It is a battle to take complete control of the nation's election counting system. A battle exists to implement a new system that will be subject to hijinks, hijacks, hacks, and cracks.
And the end-result may mean that every candidate in every office federal, state, and local may be hostile to liberty.
Already, it is an uphill battle to get state legislators to listen to your concerns. They are indoctrinated, at the start of their legislative careers, to ignore people who believe in Constitutional rights. They are told that we are right-wing nutcases, and our opinions should be overlooked. Many of these folks listen to the advice of their conditioners, despite their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
If the Elite have their way, it may no longer even be possible to get a sympathetic ear on a state or local level to issues which concern liberty-minded Americans. And that would mean that those who are bent upon destroying the American way of life, will finally have the green-light to do it.
I urge all readers of the Sweet Liberty web site to contact your local Secretary of State office and voice your concern. You might want to print out the article, Pandora's Black Box from our Computerized Voting section of this web site. Give a copy to them and to your state legislators. Our concern is that Computerized Voting cannot be made safe, and it would enable anyone with access to the results to not only control the national elections, but also the state and local elections. Essentially, every election from dog-catcher to President could be controlled.
In closing out this article today, I'll quote one of the greatest, and most ruthless dictators who ever lived:
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Communist Tyrant, Josef Stalin
For more information about the John Hopkins and Rice University study concerning the Diebold software, see the following links:
Media articles about the study: