The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy (51 page)

George Green once raised campaign funds for Jimmy Carter and was asked to be Carter’s campaign finance chairman. “I remember being flown to Aspen in a private jet and then being asked to be the Democratic Finance Chairman for the Carter election,” Green said in a 2006 interview. “I remember then saying I was a Republican and then Paul Volcker [former chairman of the board of governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System and North American chairman of the Trilateral Commission] leaned over and said, ‘That’s okay, kid. It doesn’t matter, we control them both.’”

Based on Green’s words as well as the evidence detailed earlier in this work, it should be clear now that the same secret society globalists control both the Democratic and Republican parties. This may be why people often call our members of Congress “the best representatives that money can buy.”

“The biggest problem in our government is corporate power, and with that, the huge amount of resources and political power taken by the military. Until we deal with those issues, we will go nowhere in this country on health care, the environment, social justice or anything else of importance,” said Harvey Wasserman, an author, a journalist, and an energy activist. “People should now understand that while it’s been monumentally important to finally have an African-American as president (a woman will come next), it’s now more important to have someone who is not a Republican or a Democrat, and who is committed to the welfare of the public rather than that of the corporations.”

One possible way to curtail the abuses on the election process would be to outlaw TV ads for prospective candidates, which would in many ways take money out of the equation. This would allow interested voters to learn about candidates through debates, newspaper articles, or printed flyers outlining candidate positions and policies. Political candidates would get radio and TV airtime through talk-show or journalistic interviews open to all candidates. Such interviews could open political debates to alternative ideas and less mudslinging.

Another good way of culling out greedy or financially sponsored politicians is to vote for the candidate with the least money. This person may not be any less susceptible to corruption, but it is a sure sign the individual has not sold out for campaign funds. As Bernard Baruch, the financier and political consultant to Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, once advised, “Vote for the man who promises least; he’ll be the least disappointing.”

Once the incumbent politicians have been turned out of office and a new crop arrives in Washington, the public must scrutinize their every move. The public must force them to consider term limits and to do away with their private retirement funds. Place Congress on Social Security and watch how fast it is cleaned up and well funded. Only when Congress members act suitably for the public should they be voted back into Congress.

This is not a revolutionary idea—it’s the way the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, this system is predicated on the idea that there is an alert and educated electorate and that the voting mechanism is honest and fair.

POLL WATCHERS AND PAPER BALLOTS

Z
OMBIES DON’T VOTE
. O
NLY
about half of the eligible electorate cast ballots in recent presidential elections. In 2008, this dismal record was turned around when 62 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, the highest turnout since the 1960 campaign between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. Though this percentage looks impressive, one must consider the average voter turnout in comparable European nations: Italy, 93 percent; Germany, 81 percent; Spain, 77 percent; and the United Kingdom and Ireland, 75 percent.

The comedian W. C. Fields once said, “Hell, I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.” Nowadays, people still don’t vote for anyone—they simply pull the lever or touch the screen for their political party, holding little regard for the issues or the quality of their party’s candidate. This method of voting may be due to the fact that far too many voters feel that neither of the two candidates in an election stand for their ideals. Instead of voting for a person, many voters feel they must vote against the lesser of two evils, which still means they are voting for an evil. “Once you don’t vote your ideals…that has serious undermining effects. It erodes the moral basis of our democracy,” opined unsuccessful presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

Consider the presidential election of 2004. Voters had the option of the Republican candidate George W. Bush, the scion of a rich family and a member of the secret society Skull and Bones, or Bush’s cousin, Democratic candidate John Kerry, the scion of a rich family and a member of the secret society Skull and Bones. Most informed and thoughtful people did not consider this much of a choice.

What could be worse than having two bad presidential choices? Not even being able to choose between the two. President Franklin Roosevelt said, “Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves—and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” But then, Roosevelt had no way of knowing that voters could be disenfranchised by computers and voting machine fraud.

As Boris Bazhanov notes in
Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary,
Joseph Stalin once proclaimed, “I consider it completely unimportant who…will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.”

Until very recently, votes were cast with paper ballots under the watch of poll watchers—someone appointed by a candidate, a political party, or supporters/opponents of a particular measure to observe the election procedures in a given precinct, watching for any voting irregularities. Watchers and voters may not converse within the polling place, nor are watchers permitted to interfere with the orderly conduct of the election or influence any voter.

Poll watchers have largely been outmoded by electronic voting machines, which are fundamentally just computers. The Help America Vote Act was signed into law by President Bush in 2002. It was intended to streamline and improve voting methods, such as eliminating the punch-card ballots that had caused so much trouble in the 2000 Florida election, setting standards for the training of poll workers and upgrading to electronic voting machines. But effecting these changes was left up to the individual states, which resulted in varying interpretations and effectiveness.

There has been a great deal of controversy over the use of electronic voting machines that display ballots and record and tabulate votes. Advocates of using machines claim such machines are fast, accurate, and easy to set up for disabled and non-English-speaking voters. Yet there are problems with the machines. Critics claim voting machines have many technical problems that could lead to inaccuracy and hacking. The touch-screen models are a special concern since some models do not provide a paper record of the votes, which might be necessary in the case of a manual recount.

Researcher Bev Harris, founder of the national nonpartisan, nonprofit elections watchdog group Black Box Voting Inc., wrote, “Our voting system, which is part of the public commons, has recently been privatized. When this happened, the counting of the votes, which must be a public process, subjected to the scrutiny of many eyes of plain old citizens, became a secret.”

In 2003, Bev Harris obtained internal memos from Diebold, which used to be one of the major manufacturers of electronic voting systems. Some of the internal memos documented that uncertified software was being used in its voting machines and that Diebold programmers intentionally bypassed the certification system. She posted the memos on the Internet. Though Diebold claimed Harris’s action constituted copyright infringement, a California U.S. district judge forced Diebold to relent in October 2004, when the judge ruled that Diebold had abused its copyright privileges while trying to suppress the embarrassing memos.

In 2007, Diebold changed the name of its election division to Premier Election Solutions, Inc. (PES), following a spate of bad publicity. On September 3, 2009, Election Systems & Software (ES&S) announced that it would purchase PES, which means that America is now provided voting machines by only three companies—ES&S, Sequoia Voting Systems, and Hart InterCivic. Many viewed ES&S’s acquisition as creating a near monopoly over the voting machines widely used throughout the country. “Election Systems & Software’s $5 million acquisition of Diebold Inc.’s voting-machine company amounts to a near monopoly,” cried an editorial in the
Miami Herald.
“The state [of Florida, during the 2000 presidential election,] learned the hard way that touch-screen voting did not reassure voters that their ballots were being counted because the machines left no independently verifiable paper trail.”

Of the ES&S purchase, Harvey Wasserman said, “The ES&S purchase of Diebold [PES] is indicative of a larger problem…between the two of them, they control 80% of the touchscreen machines in the U.S. Both are corrupt GOP-dominated corporations. So, the idea that just one of them will be in control doesn’t matter that much, although it has been a positive to see so much attention paid to the situation.” Party politics aside, it should be clear that the consolidation of the nation’s voting process into only a few hands offers the appearance of opportunity for, if not actual, vote manipulation.

According to Wasserman, what is more troublesome than a voting machine monopoly is “the use of the machines in the first place.” Wasserman believes that “All electronic voting machines, tabulators, etc. should be banned. We need universal automatic voter registration, and universal paper ballots that are hand-counted. Simple as that. Until we get there, there is no reason to believe any election in this country will be a reliable reflector of the popular will.” Wasserman also advocated universal automatic registration and a national holiday for voting and for vote counting, “to give working people an equal opportunity to vote.”

Diebold’s voting machines have long been controversial. Following investigations over Diebold’s voting machines, California banned one Diebold model from the state in 2004. California decertified some voting machines again in 2007. After it was learned through an open source ballot-counting program that 197 ballots had been silently dropped from voting machines in Humboldt County, investigators conducted a “top-to-bottom review” of voting machines. At the conclusion of the investigation in 2009, Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified Diebold’s Global Election Management System (GEMS) version 1.18.10 software program and three other electronic voting systems, meaning they cannot be used in California.

In March 2009, Diebold/PES’s problems became much larger when the firm admitted in a Sacramento hearing that audit logs produced by its tabulation software could miss significant events such as the deletion of votes. The company acknowledged that the problem existed with every version of its tabulation software, even those used in other states. Vote-counting GEMS software is used to tabulate votes cast on every Premier/Diebold touch-screen or optical-scan machine in more than fourteen hundred election districts in thirty-one states.

“Today’s hearing confirmed one of my worst fears,” said Kim Alexander, founder and president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. Alexander noted, “The audit logs [a program that monitors additions and deletions to the operating program] have been the top selling point for vendors hawking paperless voting systems. They and the jurisdictions that have used paperless voting machines have repeatedly pointed to the audit logs as the primary security mechanism and ‘fail-safe’ for any glitch that might occur on machines. To discover that the fail-safe itself is unreliable eliminates one of the key selling points for electronic voting security.”

In 2007, the Maryland General Assembly voted for paper ballots counted by optical scanners to replace paperless touch-screen voting machines. But the plan fell apart in 2008 when a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives didn’t approve an Election Assistance Commission program to provide the necessary states funds for the purchase of paper ballots as a backup to voting machines. In other words, efforts to return to paper ballots have been blocked at the federal level. Could this be because the New World Order socialists (sometimes National Socialists, sometimes Marxist Socialists) have gained control over the federal apparatus? Wits have said that if God intended for us to vote, he would have given us candidates. It can likewise be said that if we were intended to have fair voting, we would have hard-copy paper ballots that could remain for years in case of the need for a recount.

ENFORCE THE TENTH AMENDMENT

“T
HE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TODAY
can wage wars without the consent of our congressional representatives, overthrow foreign governments, tax nearly half of national income, abolish civil liberty in the name of ‘homeland security’ and ‘the war on drugs,’ legalize and endorse infanticide (‘partial-birth abortion’), regulate nearly every aspect of our existence, and there’s little or nothing we can do about it. ‘Write your congressman’ is the refrain of the slave to the state who doesn’t even realize he’s a slave (thanks to decades of government school brainwashing).”

These were the observations of Thomas J. DiLorenzo, a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of
How Capitalism Saved America
and
Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution—and What It Means for America Today
. DiLorenzo noted that “until 1865, the Supreme Court’s opinion was just the Supreme Court’s opinion. The citizens of the states reserved the right to offer their own opinions on constitutionality, which they often considered to be every bit as valid as the Court’s.” President Woodrow Wilson, who one might recall was placed into power by Wall Street financiers, the forerunners of today’s globalists, argued against states having the power to determine constitutionality in his 1908 book
Constitutional Government in the United States,
writing, “the War between the States [which ended in 1865] established…this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers.”