Rigging of National Elections – The Rise of Electronic Voting (Part 2)

Ed Wood

If this expose` of voter fraud was presented as a stage play, it would be characterized as a Greek Tragedy; "a drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances." Such is where we find ourselves. The main character(s) would be all those who fought and died to provide for us a form of government whose very foundation is the right to free and unencumbered elections.

There are so many acts in this play that it is difficult to know which to present next. If, after reading Act I, you still doubt that our elections are rigged, you can view the video below and hear first-hand the sworn testimony of a Mr. Clinton Eugene Curtiss before a select United States Senate Committee, admitting that he was retained by former Florida Congressman Tom Feeney, then Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, to develop a program for the specific purpose of determining the outcome of electronically tabulated elections.

This, and other election-throwing computer programs, became vital to the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. Voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas all reported that a vote for Romney resulted in either a direct or a default vote for Obama. The Market Daily News reported that in 100 Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Ohio precincts, Obama got 99% of the votes and Romney 0. In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received two votes or less. In Philadelphia, 59 precincts recorded not one single vote for Romney. And the list goes on. How is this possible? I will attempt to answer this question as you again remember the Joseph Stalin quotation, "It's not the people who vote that counts. It's the people who count the votes."

How could so many similar events be occurring simultaneously in so many different locations? Simple. All were the accomplishments of one big, happy family. So begins Act II of this drama.

In 2002, the use of "Direct Recording Electronic" (DRE) voting machines and the elimination of all paper trails of balloting was imposed upon the states through the enactment of the "Help Americans Vote Act." Since the conduct of elections is constitutionally delegated to the sovereign states, the feds came up with a $3.9 BILLION inducement for them to adopt electronic voting. Obviously, there was a lot of money and a lot of political influence involved in concentrating the tabulation of balloting into the hands of a select few. A few with connections in high places.

Enter now from left stage, the Urosevich brothers, Bob and Ted. They respectively controlled Ohio-based Diebolt and its theatrical stand-in, Nebraska-based "Election Systems and Software" (ES&S). Diebolt eventually sold out to ES&S, thus ending the competition charade. There then emerged another major performer in this off-Broadway production --- Sequoia. Its machines serviced nearly 9 million voters in the 2012 election.

The Diebolt-ES&S collaboration was temporarily disrupted by a Justice Department ant-trust indictment, forcing ES&S to sell its Diebolt interest to the Dominion Corporation --- the fourth largest name in voter technology. But a month later, the DOJ turned a blind eye as Dominion purchased Sequoia. So now, the cast of players was complete. Only two domestic voting machine manufacturers remained on stage -- ES&S and Dominion.

About that time, things got a little dicey in the head offices. Many of the key staffers were accused or convicted of a dizzying array of white-collar crimes, including conspiracy, bribery, bid rigging, computer fraud, tax fraud, stock fraud, mail fraud, extortion, and drug trafficking.

While their interests were directed elsewhere, newer technologies, including Web-based voting, emerged on the scene in the form of the Spanish-owned firm, Scytl. And to keep things nice and cozy, Scytl named our old friend Bob Urosevich, of Diebolt fame, as managing director of its Americas division.

Scytl became the subject of much speculation that the tabulation of domestic balloting had been outsourced by the Obama administration to this Spanish firm, owned by international financier, George Soros. True, Scytl had been contracted to handle some overseas military ballots, but there is apparently no basis to the Obama outsourcing story, or ownership by George Soros. However, Scytl is believed to have provided the Web-based technology to Allpoint Voter Services, used by the North Carolina State Board of Elections and the Obama campaign's GottaRegister.com website to enroll at least 11,000 persons via the internet, in violation of North Carolina state law.

So, as the curtain falls on Act II of what has now become an American Tragedy, the very foundation of our Representative Republic, the right to free and open elections, is now concentrated in the hands of a few politically connected entities; entities that are neither free nor open.

Are Our National Elections Rigged? Part 1

Ed Wood

Well of course they are. That's a foregone conclusion; not even a fit subject for intelligent debate any more. Oh, it's a little more sophisticated now than in the days of the old Tennessee custom of a Mason jar of moonshine, or the Chicago precinct captain's distribution of "walking around money." But the practice is alive and well, and more pervasive than ever. The evidence is everywhere if we choose to look.

Why do you think there is such a push to eliminate citizenship ID as a requirement to vote? Why do you think there is such a push to grant voting rights to illegal aliens? Why do you think voting machines that leave a paper trail have been eliminated in favor of electronic tabulation, far away from where the votes are actually cast? Why do you think that in the 2012 Presidential Election there were many reports of voter fraud, or intimidation, but no reports of conviction? Remember the 158.85% voter turnout in St. Lucie County Florida, the highest voter turnout in the Country? Of course it contributed heavily to the defeat of Republican Congressional incumbent, Colonel Alan West. And yes Colonel West did ask for a recount, but it was not granted.

Remember the uniformed members of the New Black Panthers, wielding billyclubs and blocking entry to the Philadelphia polling places? Charges were made but subsequently dropped by the Obama Justice Department. And I won't even get into the unchallenged Acorn voter registration frauds.

Of course, there is a pattern here that favors one political party over the other, but these are rather insignificant isolated instances compared to the big picture that is beginning to emerge. I believe it was Joseph Stalin who said, "It's not the people who vote that counts. It's the people who count the votes." That advice has been taken to heart by our current crop of politicians.

Is political tampering new? Of course not. In 1915 mass indictments for voter fraud were handed down in Terre Haute, IN, in which the incumbent sheriff, and the local judge, and the Terre Haute mayor were all sentenced to the pokey. By 1932 Louisiana senator Huey "Kingfish" Long had polished the process to the point that he won unanimously in sixteen New Orleans precincts and tallied identical votes in 28 others. New York's Tammany Hall political machine bought off judges, politicians, ward captains, and controlled Democrat Party nominations for more than a century. What is new is the size and scope of election tampering now made possible with current electronic monitoring and tabulation.

Mass corruption began in earnest in 2002 with the passage of another of those laws with the cutsie little name of the "Help Americans Vote Act," which gave states $3.9 BILLION if they would to do away with balloting that left a paper trail, and substituted what was termed "Direct Recording Electronic" (DRE) voting machines. This took vote counting away from local communities and transferred it to centralized voting centers with political interests in the outcome. (Please remember the aforementioned Joseph Stalin quotation.)

A number of hardware manufacturers got into the act with no electronic experience, but lots of political connections. None worse than Diebolt, a producer of wall safes. Their voting machine subsidiary was so dysfunctional that its collection of ballots was easily hacked, remotely or on-site, using any off-the-shelf version of the Microsoft "Access" program. The US Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory issued a report that the outcome of an entire election could be arranged by anyone with $26 in parts and an 8th grade science education. Diebolt's reputation was so bad that they eventually changed their name to "Premier Election Solutions." But by then the damage was done, so Diebolt got out of the election business altogether, selling out to "Election Systems and Software" (ES&S).

This story has so many ins-and-outs, and involves too many interconnecting politicians and entities, I will follow only one. The aforementioned Election Systems and Software (ES&S).

The date: 1996. The location: Nebraska. The event: A senate race. From out of nowhere, a virtually unknown millionaire named Chuck Hagel staged an amazing upset victory over the popular Democrat Governor Ben Nelson, who had been elected in a landslide only two years previously. It was little known at the time, but two weeks before announcing his candidacy, Chuck Hagel had stepped down as CEO of ES&S, the firm that would soon count his own senate votes. He won, of course.

In 2002 Hagel was challenged by Democrat Charlie Natulka. The votes were again electronically tabulated by ES&S, and this time Hagel won 83% of the vote, the largest margin of victory ever recorded in Nebraska history!

Matulka's request for an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee was denied. Would not have mattered though since Nebraska law states that recounts must be conducted using the same "vote-counting device" used in the actual election, which, of course, would be the same ES&S machine.

There are many, many, other facets to this voter corruption scandal. I have only scratched the surface with this one, and I am already running out of space, but let me conclude this one part by asking that you please keep in mind that this is the same Chuck Hagel, who after serving two terms in the United States Senate, is now the Obama administration's recently appointed Secretary of Defense.

Who says that crime doesn't pay? Depends on the game, I guess.

Is Obama Building A Federal Police Force?

Is Obama Building A Federal Police Force?

By Tara Servatius

Less than two weeks ago, Sen. Rand Paul’s demanded to know whether the president believed he had a right to kill an American citizen on American soil with a drone, finally getting an answer that had to be dragged out Attorney General Eric Holder. An equally important, but still unasked question is whether the president intends to build a federal, drone-based “public safety” force to police local communities.

Somebody had better ask the president about this quickly, because it appears that his administration intends to use drones to actively usurp what were once local police and sheriff’s department functions.

Put it all together, and it sure looks like Obama is building the backbone for that national police force he wanted the first time he ran for office.

Worse yet, both Democrats and Republicans are now openly discussing a plan to put all the drones flown in America’s skies, including those owned and operated by local police departments, under the ultimate supervision of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, consolidating the country’s surveillance and law enforcement powers under one powerful federal police jurisdiction.

According to Wired.com, DHS is now experimenting with how its drones can be used in “first responder, law enforcement and border security scenarios.”

The DHS’s drones could also be used, Nextgov.com reported, “to support emergency and non-emergency incidents nationwide” and to give the department “situational awareness” in public safety matters or disasters, including forest fires. The department also plans to use its drones, and their attached cameras to surveil and police sporting events, political events and large public gatherings.

The problem with DHS’s plans is that many of the above functions used to be handled by local law enforcement without any help from the federal government.

DHS appears to be planning a vast surveillance network, and it is rapidly developing the technology to create it. Wired.com reports this about drone technology:

The Department of Homeland Security is interested in a camera package that can peek in on almost four square miles of (constitutionally protected) American territory for long, long stretches of time.

Homeland Security doesn’t have a particular system in mind. Right now, it’s just soliciting “industry feedback” on what a formal call for such a “Wide Area Surveillance System” might look like. But it’s the latest indication of how powerful military surveillance technology, developed to find foreign insurgents and terrorists, is migrating to the home front.

The Department of Homeland Security says it’s interested in a system that can see between five to 10 square kilometers - that’s between two and four square miles, roughly the size of Brooklyn, New York’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood - in its “persistent mode.” By “persistent,” it means the cameras should stare at the area in question for an unspecified number of hours to collect what the military likes to call “pattern of life” data - that is, what “normal” activity looks like for a given area.

In America, community policing has always been done at the local level. If a police force engaged in corruption, abused people, or got out of control, local voters could and likely would rapidly vote out the mayor or council that controlled it. You could get a badge number. You could file a report. You could call your local newspaper. This has always kept police departments responsive to the will and the needs of local communities - and firmly under their control.

But drone technology is now allowing Washington’s multitude of law enforcement agencies to begin to compete for police powers and police duties that have always fallen to local police departments.

Even more alarming, a subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security is currently studying a plan to put all the drones flown in America’s airways under direct supervision of DHS and the Department of Justice.

After a 2011 plot to use a drone to bomb the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol was thwarted by the FBI, Congress began exploring the idea of putting all drones - including those flown by local law enforcement agencies - under federal control to protect citizens against rogue drone operators with bad intentions.

The House Homeland Security committee, which oversees these matters, also became concerned last year that other federal government agencies were “borrowing DHS drones or procuring their own for scouting populated areas - without the department’s supervision,” Nextgov.com reported.

To deal with all of this, Committee on Homeland Security subcommittee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, says the committee will mandate that DHS, the Justice Department and the FAA coordinate to oversee all drones that fly within the country, but has said he prefers that the Obama administration do so without a requirement from Congress.

While the intentions here might not be totalitarian, the ultimate outcome could be, especially as more federal and local law enforcement agencies come to rely on drone technology and the federal government begins to police the interior in ways that were unthinkable just 15 years ago, before the Department of Homeland Security - and the use of drone technology — even existed.

On Washington’s present track with this, in a decade it could be hard to tell where your local police department ends and the federal government begins.

Karl Marx and the American Dream

March 15, 2013

By Jeremy Meister

You cannot use Karl Marx's ideas to help the middle class.

You can't do it.

Anyone who claims otherwise is stupid, ignorant, crazy, a liar, or some combination of the above. Even the laziest student can open a copy of the Communist Manifesto and read the first page, where Marx launches in to an attack on the middle class (the "bourgeoisie," as he calls them) -- an attack that continues to the end of his article. At no point does Marx say anything good about the middle class. Never does Marx propose a way to help the middle class. The whole Manifesto is a recipe for destroying the bourgeoisie and the economic system that creates and supports them (capitalism).

Basically, Marx advocated a return to the medieval lifestyle: a time when the barons and princes looked out for and took care of the happy serfs, who spent their days dancing around the maypole and praising their lords. Marx saw it as a time when everyone shared, everyone took pride in what he did, and everyone looked out for his neighbor.

But there was a problem in this paradise. It was the evil middle class who, unhappy and ungrateful in their place, rose up and destroyed the perfect social order.

The only problem with trying to return to the middle-age way of doing things is that Marx and his friends might not be at the top of the pecking order. Thankfully, Marx had a solution for this, too: "the people" would get together and, after voting, put Marx (and his friends) in charge. After all, someone has to lead these unwashed idiots. There would be only one vote: the one where Marx is elected king. After that, everything would be said to be the "will of the people."

This is why you'll never run into a follower of Marx. Communism/Socialism are completely followerless movements. If you ever talk to a Communist or a Marxist, you'll get the same story -- when the revolution comes, my friends and I will be in charge. You'll never hear a Marxist smile and say, "When the revolution comes I'm going to polish the leader's boots".

Marx wanted his system immediately -- preferably consisting of a violent destruction of the middle class, with blood running like rivers in the streets. But being a pragmatic man, he was willing to wait.





The true genius of the modern Marxists is that they have managed to convince a majority of middle-classers that Marx's ideas really can help the bourgeoisie. And it's hard to distinguish between those who actually believe that Socialism is a viable system and those opportunists who are simply planning to use such a system to their own ends.





How many of these modern Marxists are really this ignorant of their document? How often do we hear that "[this Marxist idea] needs to be done to help working families" or "[that Marxist idea] needs to be implemented to help the middle class"?

The Marxists espouse this nonsense because people believe it. Middle-classers have now become the ones voting for and supporting these ideas. Arrest records from the Marxist celebration of Occupy Wall Street show that most of those involved in that movement are from comfortable (dare we call them "bourgeoisie"?) backgrounds. But it goes deeper than that. In any given poll, middle-class people overwhelmingly like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, government subsidies of education and housing -- the list is endless, and the demands are never-ending.

But none of these programs is designed to help the middle class -- not any more than a drug dealer despite giving out medicines is interested in the health and well-being of his clientele. A little bit always leads to a demand for more. And after decades of calls for more, more, more, we get what we're looking at in 2013: the imminent total collapse of capitalist system.

When was the last time you heard some politician calling for any of the following?

1) A heavily progressive income tax. The more you make, the more they'll take. The rich are to pay their "fair share." We just had one of the biggest tax increases in American history starting January 1, but this hasn't stopped liberal politicians from demanding more hikes.

2) Seizing of inheritances. One of the most insidious taxes around is the death tax. Grieving families are forced to give half or more of their loved ones' property to the government. Interestingly enough, this idea is now working its way into gun control legislation. There are calls for "assault weapons" being forfeited at their owners' death.

3) Government takeover of the credit system. Already the government owns loans on a lot of houses. ObamaCare mandates that only the government can now give student loans. Meanwhile, the government is its own biggest debtor, swelling the amount we owe to levels never before seen in world history.

4) A takeover of the media. From "non Citizen" legislation, which would stop groups and businesses from speaking during elections to media "bailouts," which would come with government strings, or just outright nationalizations of media outlets, the government has big ideas for a "transformation" of the meaning of "free speech."

5) Overhaul of transportation. How often do we hear the phrase "shovel-ready jobs" or "roads and bridges"? They are pushing a train from Las Vegas to LA and another train that will run down the California coast. Transportation projects are a popular subject, even as the government coffers shrink and the costs of such projects explode.

6) Regulations of industry, especially in an environmental sense. Obama has one of the most active and overbearing EPAs since that agency was founded.

7) Expansion of education. Everyone shall go to school -- kindergarten through college -- and it will all be paid for by the government.

8) Government ownership of business. We've already watched the government gobble up the banks and auto-makers. Now we're watching them take over the medical system. Gun companies are probably on the horizon as well.

How many of these ideas sound familiar? Every single one of them is laid out in the Communist Manifesto as a way to destroy the middle class. Every single one. Forget good-sounding talk about "fair shares" and making the evil rich pay. They're coming after you, Mr. and Mrs. American.

Marx gave those ideas above their own bullet points in the Manifesto, but he had other ideas. Would you like to hear some of those?

1) Abolition of borders. The lower class (the "proletariat," as Marx called them) need to be free to move to other nations -- the better to corrupt the vote in those places.

2) A takeover of education. Not just through government ownership, but through like-minded Communists and Socialists populating the educators and lecturing students about the goodness of Marxism. The results have made a profound difference in our culture.

Every single time these ideas are implemented, the middle class takes more damage, which in turn leads to the bourgeoisie Marxists calling for more Marxism -- and the little merry-go-round keeps spinning in the halls of our government.

All of this is culminating exactly as Marx envisioned: a healthy, prosperous ruling elite lording it over a rapidly growing population of serfs. This hasn't been lost on the people paying attention: California is becoming a feudal society. There are stories leaking out that the same thing is happening in other liberal Marxist enclaves like New York and Washington, D.C.

This is a huge problem for our government, our system, our culture, and our society -- namely because the United States is a middle-class dream. The Founding Fathers were all from the "bourgeoisie" who rebelled because the government in England didn't feel that it had to respond to the concerns of peasants and underlings.

The idea that someone can start with nothing and, using hard work, creativity, and ingenuity, raise himself to a higher level is the American Dream. To own one's own house, own one's own car, to start a business, to work where one chooses, to take risks and reap the rewards of those risks -- that's the American Dream. It's why immigrants used to sacrifice everything to come here: the idea that one's birth wouldn't dictate his entire life and how far he could go. People are still willing to risk their lives for this. People are not locked into a caste system in America.

And all of that is anathema to the Marxist vision. Even Marx himself admits this:

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. (The Communist Manifesto)

There is a small bright spot, however. Right now, we're still mostly a middle-class society. In a system where the vote is everything, there is still a chance to stop all of this destruction. But the first thing we as a society have to do is start being honest with ourselves. We cannot use Marx's ideas to obtain the American Dream.

The first step to fixing a problem is to admit that you have one.

Resistance Becomes Duty

Obama Admin Prepares To Disarm America

March 2, 2013 by Kris Zane 68
Barack Obama is a Marxist. And like all good Marxists, he wants to disarm the public. It's not like it hasn't been done before. In October 1918, the Communist government "ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition…having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier."
The Nazis followed the same pattern.
The Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 prohibited Jews from "acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons."
Both the Nazis and Communist Party members were exempt from these guns bans.
Now it's our federal government that is exempt from the laws they place on the public they are mandated to serve.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Obama and his Marxist minions began wringing their hands decrying those evil assault weapons, while quietly ordering 7000 AR-15s for the Department of Homeland Security.  In order to exempt themselves from the laws they want to foist on the American people, the AR-15s are being referred to as "personal defense weapons."
But what is really shocking is the number of bullets the federal government is stockpiling.
The Department of Homeland Security has stockpiled a staggering amount of ammunition—two billion rounds, most of it the hollow point, armor-piercing variety, enough to kill every American man, woman, and child five times.
The DHS claims all these bullets are for "training purposes."
And what are they using for targets?
The DHS has been stockpiling "non-traditional" gun targets, portraying everyday Americans defending themselves, even purchasing targets of a small child with a handgun.
The ATF, with fond memories of the Ruby Ridge massacre, is also getting in the act with a target depicting a woman protecting her unborn child.
But what is good for the government apparently is not good for the public.
The Veterans Administration is moving to disarm so-called "incompetent" veterans, sending out thousands of letters with the following:
A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both…
Of course, the letter leaves open as to what "incompetency" entails.
Military veterans traditionally are liberty-loving conservatives. This "incompetency" may be the government's view that veterans have a predilection for becoming domestic terrorists.
A little known sub-department within the DHS called the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism—START, for short— published "Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States." Who should we be worried about, per START? Those who are "reverent of individual liberty." Those who are "suspicious of centralized federal authority." Those who believe there is a "grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty."
Sounds like the basis for the Obama administration to take out veterans, Tea Party members, and anyone who holds conservative values. Anyone who believes the Constitution of the United States is the highest law in the land.
Everyday conservative Americans are becoming Public Enemy Number One of the Obama Administration.
And enemies need to be disarmed.
The Trojan Horse of the Obama administration's gun grab, however, is the so-called "universal background check." The universal background check is nothing more than a national gun registry. What do we know about national gun registries throughout history?
Both the Communists and Nazis used the ruse of a national gun registry as a precursor to gun confiscation.
And that is exactly what is coming.
The NRA uncovered a secret DOJ memo calling for a national gun registration leading to confiscation.
Then the only ones who will have guns will be Obama and his rogue government thugs.
Hold on to your guns, America.