By Terry Sneller
As far back in human history as we can determine, there have primarily been two classes of people – the ruling and the ruled. Rarely have there been groups of organized humans where one group didn't dominate the others. The means of control have varied from raw physical power, to beads, to gold, to superstition/religion, to control of resources, to land/territory, to intimidation, etc. One common thread that runs through most means of control is fear.
In our contemporary period of history, the Nazis honed the fine art of control through their development of fear- based propaganda. Through the decades, those lessons of how to control and then manipulate masses of people were not ignored by right leaning individuals and groups in their obsessive and psychopathic/sociopathic pursuit of power. In fact, those methods have been masterfully studied, improved upon and adapted to today's expanded and expanding forms of communications.
Today, the ruling class in America has a vast economic power base that has been used to seize control of ALL major industries, - not only in the US, but in much of the world as well. They rarely do anything illegal, as they now have the power to make the laws they live by. In our country, they now not only control our financial institutions, but the political, military, government, and industrial realms as well. Through their highly effective use and control of what is referred to as the “Main Stream Media” and the various voting processes, a relatively small group of sociopathically insane, but excessively rich, individuals have been able to manipulate the thinking and votes of a large enough percentage of the public to achieve effective political control.
By Terry Sneller
'Have been musing about how the NSA and the GCHQ got so chummy, and this opinion piece also made me wonder about how our own system evolved over time in the way it did. Based on the anecdotal evidence, it seems that the U.S. has always been dependent in some ways on the British scheme of intelligence, as structured in government. We forget nowadays that, in the longer view, the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA are all fairly recent constructs--the FBI is a little more than 75 years old (although it grew out of the earlier BOI--Bureau of Investigations--created about 25 years previously). The CIA is only about 65 years old, and the NSA, a mere stripling at 60 years old.
To a considerable degree, we've followed the British model of organization. The FBI is the analog of MI5, the CIA that of MI6 (thus purportedly separating domestic and foreign intelligence pursuits), with GCHQ originally handling signals intelligence and cryptography for both the military and civilian government, as the NSA has done for much of its existence (the notable exception being that NSA has its mandate as a military operation, with military leadership and funding from military budgets).
We've also followed the British tendency of taking its prime intelligence recruits from elite institutions--Cambridge, Oxford, Eton, Sandhurst, and the like, as our intelligence services are fond of Yale, particularly, and Harvard, and for a time during the Cold War, from elite Catholic universities such as Fordham and Notre Dame, most likely because idealistic young Catholic students might reliably become good Cold Warriors in the fight against godless Communism.
by Bev Harris, Founder of BlackBoxVoting.org
Two vaults being used in a special election for the Florida House were stolen last week. Unbeknownst to the burglars, they were caught on videotape. The vaults contained a voting machine, the electronic storage device containing all early votes cast, and 850 blank ballots. The motive isn't immediately clear, but here is what we know so far.
In this report, I've gathered some of the answers needed to examine how the burglary might have affected the election.
The Santa Rosa County Sheriff's office released a portion of the surveillance video; more information, contained in the police report, indicates there is additional footage not yet released to the public.
By Bev Harris, Founder of Blackboxvoting.org
Section 2 in the proposed new RIGHT TO VOTE U.S. Constitutional amendment switches election controls from state to feds. And it's a lot easier to tilt controls when they are centralized.
Especially this year, I have become wary of how news media portrays proposed legislation, as compared with what is actually in the legislation. So when I saw U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan's proposed Constitutional amendment portrayed simply as a national right to vote bill, I wondered what else was in it. I'm not saying it isn't well intended, but ...
While Section 1 states a right to vote, Section 2 puts the federal government in position to dictate anything it wants to control local and state elections. And that's a problem, because it alters balance of power. All it will take is a one-vote majority by the party you loathe -- whichever party, not the point -- to wrest control over election systems in all 50 states at once. In other words, the proposed Amendment sounds nice, but because of its Section 2, it is destabilizing.
By Bev Harris, founder of Blackboxvoting.org
Whoever controls chain of custody for voting computers can control elections. That is, until more transparent election procedures are enacted (see end of this article). Until that time, election integrity in Niagara, falls. (Groan.)
But for bad puns, I'm afraid the company that owns the voting machine warehouse in Niagara County has me beat. That firm is aptly named "Clear Opportunity."
(See more here, including documentation on this: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/82452.html)
Niagara County, New York Republicans, in a no-bid contract with a company owned by one of their largest contributors, has offered up a crucial link in voting machine chain of custody. Niagara signed a lease to house its voting computers in a warehouse owned by Clear Opportunity Properties, LLC, owned by GOP supporter David Ulrich.
Niagara County Democrats are apparently uncomfortable enough with the sweetheart deal to try to get that contract opened up to competitive bidding.
"Sweetheart deal" may be a gentle term. "Rapaciously gainful" or perhaps "copiously creative" might be more accurate ways to describe it.
Page 1 of 11