Source: RT
August 21, 2017
CNN recently announced that after 10 years, it will no longer be working with ORC International, their polling firm. It stands for the Opinion Research Corporation.
Tag: Elections
Trump argument bolstered: Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds
Source: WashingtonTimes.com
January 27, 2017
Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton …
This is a coup: the Homeland Security takeover of US elections
On a scale of importance from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most important, this breaking development is a 500.
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 8, 2016
On Friday, the traditional day of the week for quietly releasing big news that will hopefully be ignored by the public—and also obscured by the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting—the chief of Homeland Security announced that his office will be taking over US elections.
If you can’t see the coup in progress, you need to keep looking until the message comes through.
Read carefully—ABC News reports. My comments are in brackets:
“Citing increasingly sophisticated cyber bad actors and an election infrastructure that’s ‘vital to our national interests’, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced Friday that he’s designating U.S. election systems critical infrastructure…”
[Also known as: “we’re taking over.”]
“’Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law’,” Johnson said in a statement. He added: ‘Particularly in these times, this designation is simply the right and obvious thing to do’.”
[Also known as: “we’re taking over.”]
“The determination came after months of review and despite opposition from many states worried that the designation would lead to increased federal regulation or oversight on the many decentralized and locally run voting systems across the country. It was announced on the same day a declassified U.S. intelligence report said Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘ordered’ an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.”
[Also known as: “we needed an excuse, a fake cover story for our takeover, and Russia is it.”]
“Such a change [in who controls the US election process] does not require presidential action [or Congressional approval], and only requires the secretary [of DHS] to first consult with the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.”
[Also known as: “this is a coup by the White House.”]
“Johnson said election infrastructure included storage facilities, polling places and vote tabulation locations, plus technology involved in the process, including voter registration databases, voting machines and other systems used to manage the election process and report and display results.”
[Also known as: “We’re taking over every significant aspect of the national election process.”]
“The designation [of US elections as critical infrastructure] allows for information to be withheld from the public when state, local and private partners meet to discuss election infrastructure security — potentially injecting secrecy into an election process that’s traditionally and expressly a transparent process. U.S. officials say such closed door conversations allow for frank discussion that would prevent bad actors from learning about vulnerabilities. DHS would also be able to grant security clearances when appropriate and provide more detailed threat information to states.”
[Also known as: “we can intercede in the election process and determine its outcome without any need to pretend we’re being transparent; only people we approve will know the details of how we run elections; secrecy works.”]
“The Obama administration has proposed international cyber rules for peacetime that would expressly note that countries shouldn’t conduct online activity targeting critical [US] infrastructure, which will now also include election systems.”
[Also known as: “in case there is any doubt, elections systems in America will be property of the federal Executive Branch.”]
This is a coup.
This is equivalent to declaring a national state of emergency, including martial law: the DHS, if it deemed it necessary, could utilize armed agents to enforce the new directive and take over states’ offices that resist.
Election-processes belong to the states. But not anymore.
And of course, with this awesome new power, the DHS could intercede, behind the scenes, in the voting process and rig elections.
There is an additional aligned factor at work in this op: the proposed elimination of the Electoral College—yet another measure designed to “federalize” the election process.
Most people are entirely ignorant of the fact that the Constitution was a pact among states. With reluctance, the independent states agreed to relinquish certain specified powers to the newly created central government, while retaining all other powers.
The Electoral College was, therefore, a natural invention, because the states would maintain crucial influence in determining the outcome of presidential elections. State Electors would cast their presidential votes based on which candidate won in their state.
Eliminating the Electoral College now would add one more layer of federal control over the whole country, and take control from the states. More centralization.
Imagine it. Only the popular vote counts. The states are dumped. And on top of it all, the Dept. of Homeland Security has the power to run the election process as a piece of “critical infrastructure.”
Rigging the vote in New York and California, plus a few other populous states, would decide the election. And in time, no one would think about “New York” or “California” as separate entities—because they wouldn’t be. They would just be “more land and people” that are part of “wholly unified” America.
This is perfect for the “unity politicians” who spout empty rhetoric every chance they get—“we’re all in this together.” As I tirelessly point out, such slogans are nothing less than covert ops, and their goal is roping in as many dullards as possible under a messianic banner of A Better Life for All under a Beneficent Government.
Also known as: we the rulers decree, you the people submit; your survival depends on us; we give and take as we will, and that shall be the whole of the law.
Eventually, why have presidential elections at all? Just allow the DHS to determine which candidate will best serve the needs and desires of the controllers.
It’s cleaner, simpler, and more direct.
It’s a coup.
Will Trump cancel it?
Obama is basically challenging him to do it—which would create one more firestorm in the press directed at Trump.
“See, the new president just stopped the DHS from protecting our sacred free elections. Trump is exhibiting more treasonous cooperation with his Russian masters…he’s leaving the door wide open for their secret invasion against our liberties…”
The timeline is clear. One: Hillary will surely win the election. Two: Trump won the election. Three: Trump won because Russia “hacked the election” in his favor. Four: We must protect our national election process from foreign hacking. Five: Homeland Security must put itself in charge of national elections.
Stay tuned.
A coup just occurred.
Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
The Upcoming Italian Constitutional Referendum
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 1, 2016
As I’ve been urging for a few months, there’s two countries in Europe to watch right now: France, and Italy. I’ve already addressed some of my reasons for saying to watch the former country in blogs earlier this week, so now it;s time to turn to Italy, and this this article from Zero Hedge shared by Mr. V.T.:
Beppe Grillo: “The Amateurs Are Conquering The World Because The ‘Experts’ Destroyed It”
If you’ve been following the career of Italian opposition leader, Signor Beppe Grillo, it may seem at first glance that he is reflecting similar pro-sovereignty, pro-national culture sentiments that have been seen at work in the BREXIT referendum, the recent American political election/referendum, or the similar movements in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, or Hungary. But Grillo is thinking along much broader, and deeper lines, and it’s worth taking a look at what he sees at stake not only in and for Italy, but for the world. Consider these statements:
Perhaps the most notable point brouth up by Grillo is his answer whether he would govern Italy if given the opportunity, after the failure of Renzi. This is what he said:
We want to govern, but we don’t want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision. We’re talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage all that.
From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an operating system called Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even suggest laws in their own name. This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have done it.
If that is Grillo’s checklist of conditions he needs to take charge, he may find more appropriate career choices elsewhere, unless of course he merely wants to be constantly “in the running”, without actually ever winning.
Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of “experts” by amateurs.
euronews: “Do you think appealing to people’s emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?”
Beppe Grillo: “This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don’t have a political project, you’re not capable, you’re imbeciles, amateurs… And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I’m rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that’s the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we’ll also get to face it.”
(Bold emphasis in the original, italicized emphasis added)
What grabbed my attention here is something I’ve advocated from time to time, and which we saw reflected to a certain degree in the recent Trump campaign and its heavy reliance on social media to reach out directly to supporters, in conjunction with massive campaign rally personal appearances, namely, the use of the internet to bring back a measure of direct and immediate individual participation and monitoring of representative institutions, legislatures, and representatives themselves. Grillo is in effect advocating even that citizens can even propose laws. Notably, he is not proposing the abolition of representative legislatures, but rather a process working in tandem with them.
There’s something else that Grillo said, however, and this really grabbed my attention, and I hope it does yours as well, for Grillo gets that we need to start thinking, and start thinking now and in a deep way, about the nature of the relationship between finance, our current financial “work-for-pay” system, and politics, for as we all know, technology is now progressing to the point that the normal “create jobs” solution to economic woes simply has to start thinking outside the box. Here’s what Grillo said:
Beppe Grillo
“We want to govern, but we don’t want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.
“We’re talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage all that.” (Italicized, and italicized-boldface emphases added)
One might be tempted to view his remarks are being all too capable of being perverted into the typical “centralized and organized management” sorts of socialist solutions, and in Italian politics, there’s always that very real danger. What catches the eye, however, is the phrase “the start of working for other payment,” which implies a redefinition both of payment and media of exchange, as well as the nature of work itself; if autos are being made, assembled, and perhaps even transported by driverless trucks and lorries that are effedtively nothing but transportation robots, then what happens to human…
Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________
Europe, Trump & Election Implications
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 16, 2016
Watching the geopolitical fallout from the American referendum has been almost impossible, for in these past few days I’ve received a veritable tsunami of emails containing articles that people have noticed and passed long, and I’m still sorting through them! But this one caught my eye for it clearly indicates that some of that fallout will be strongest in Europe. I’ve been of the opinion that President-elect Trump’s victory will have geopolitical consequences, first and foremost in Europe. On the one hand, I’ve been of the opinion that his victory will give support and strengthen the anti-globalist movement in Europe, particularly in nations such as Austria, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, that have been crushed by a flood of refugees from the Islamic world. There’s no reason to rehearse what the effects of this has been, for we have seen the stories. In Great Britain, of course, we had the BREXIT referendum, and the ongoing attempts in that country of the globaloneyists and corporatists to undo it by stonewalling and attempting to dilute it.
But to sum all this up, in general, this now world-wide movement appears to have a major though underlying theme or conceptual core, and that is “anti-centralism.” The larger and more centralized the “governmental and bureaucratic solution” is, the more inept, clumsy, and removed from local-on-the-ground reality it becomes. Indeed, Mr. Globaloney has been engaged on an experiment for the past few decades – really the past century or more, but certainly ramped up since the administration of US President G.H.W. Bush in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and proceeding apace under Clinton, Bush II, and Obama – an experiment precisely in such massive centralization. The reason is simple: the more such political and bureaucratic power is consolidated and centralized, the less say “ordinary people” have. In other words, if you think your big federal governments in Berlin or Paris or Rome or Madrid or Washington (i.e., fill in your favorite globaloneyist-occupied capital here) are tyrannical and unresponsive, just wait until you see the same thing on a truly planetary basis! It’s merely a way for the corrupt global corporate mafias to secure their own power.
The trouble is, this experiment has no precedent in human history: in other words, there’s not a shred of evidence that such a scheme can actually work, unless of course one wants to go back to some ancient texts, and there the outcome is always the same: the attempt didn’t work, usually because “someone else” stepped in and put a stop to it. In my secret space program talks and in my book Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations, I’ve called this the “Tower of Babel Moment,” that uneasy period of transition to a genuinely global society, during which the powers that be must play their card game very carefully so as to avoid any such “repeat.” Notably, in those ancient stories, the goal was centralization, and that could be taken to be at least in part the cause and motivation for the “intervention.”
The bottom line here in Europe’s case is that President-elect Trump’s victory can, and I think will, fuel that anti-centralizing impulse we see emerging on the political scene in Europe.
But it can also fuel the centralizing impulse of the Euro-technocrats themselves, as this important article, shared by Mr. J.C., also points out:
Europe needs own army, can’t rely on US forever – EU Commission President
As noted, the European commission president Mr. Juncker – and don’t you just love the fact that the president of the European Commission’s surname recalls those Prussian Junckers of yesteryear? (And where’s your Pickelhaube, Herr Juncker? You seem oddly out of uniform, and I’ll be you have one!) – anyway, to get back to the main point here. The European Commission President Mr. Juncker is now calling for a trans-European army:
Europe should build its own army and not rely on security guarantees from Washington, the European Commission president said following the election of Donald Trump. At the same time, Jean-Claude Juncker called for the preservation of the transatlantic partnership.Speaking in Berlin about the future of Europe sometime around 2050, Juncker had to ad lib, admitting that his speech had been written with the assumption that Hillary Clinton would be the victor of the US presidential race. But reflecting on the unexpected outcome of Trump’s presidency, Juncker said that “regardless” of who is the US president, the EU and the US must work together. (Emphasis added)
Notably, Mr. Juncker composed his speech thinking Mrs. Clinton would emerge victorious. And that’s a strong indicator that the European army project was all business-as-usual for Mr. Globaloney, and part and parcel of the policies that Darth Hillary would have been on board with.
But I submit that Mr. Trump’s own campaign rhetoric gives even more oxygen to this centralizing fire, for his insistence on US allies doing more for their own self-defense, and for his willingness to re-examine NATO. So on the one hand, his victory aids and strengthens the anti-centralizing tendency at the popular level, and on the other…
Continue Reading at GizaDeathStar.com:
_________________________________________________
Veteran Reporter Exposes The New York Times’ Arrogant, Disconnected, Agenda Driven Perspective
Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
November 11, 2016
Yesterday, Michael Cieply, a 12-year veteran of the New York Times who left this past July, wrote a phenomenal article at Deadline Hollywood titled, Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching. Before highlighting some key excerpts, let’s set the stage.
The New York Times’ coverage of the 2016 Presidential election was an abysmal disgrace. I first became aware of the extent of the paper’s shady and compromised reporting, when the editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary over Bernie Sanders without making an intelligible or coherent argument to justify the stance. This outraged me to such an extent, I wrote a post titled, A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which you should reread in full.
Here’s how I began the piece:
The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.
In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.
One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.
With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.
After the paper successfully helped to dispose of Senator Sanders, it continued to commit egregious errors as a result of its blinded, fanatical support of Hillary Clinton. I highlighted an example of this behavior in the August post: New York Times Fails to Disclose Op-Ed Writer’s Ties to Hillary Clinton’s ‘Principal Gatekeeper’.
Fast forward to just one week before the election, when I discovered a tweet in my stream from the paper with such an absurd forecast I immediately flagged it with the following tweet:
I didn’t find the Times’ tweet absurd because I was some ardent Trump supporter (I wasn’t). Rather, I was able to recognize it as absurd because it was absurd. So why was I, a nobody blogger, able to see the ridiculousness of this forecast so clearly when the New York Times couldn’t? Because The New York Times had a predetermined agenda, and this agenda blinded it to reality.
With that out of the way, let’s dig into how things work at The New York Times according to…
Fakery: major media preparing to steal election-night outcome?
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
October 17, 2016
Note: this article is about the early projections media outlets make on election night—when they call the winner.
Here it is in a nutshell: major media consider the election a media event.
Therefore, they control it.
Therefore, when they project the election-outcome the night of the vote, even though that call is unofficial, they want compliance from the candidates. THEY WANT A FAST CONCESSION SPEECH from the loser. Well, a concession from Trump, because the networks and their allies in print newspapers are already painting a picture of a Hillary victory (for example, see this WaPo article). The picture is: Trump’s campaign is falling apart, Hillary is leading in battleground states, and she may even expand her reach into states Trump was previously thought to have wrapped up.
On Meet the Press Sunday, Mike Pence was asked point blank: if you lose on election night, will you and Donald concede? And Pence said yes.
The media-concocted story line: if Trump loses and he refuses to concede, because he believes the count was rigged, he’ll be inciting violence and endangering the country.
Of course, the networks calling the election victory is unofficial. It’s all happening in a bubble.
The networks are terrified that Trump will refuse to concede if they say he lost. Instead, he will say: “My team and I have definite knowledge of widespread vote fraud in many states. As I speak, we are filing suits. We not only want an accurate recount, we want criminal charges brought against the vote riggers. We know who they are. Some of the culprits are media networks. You can say I’m a sore loser but I’m not. I’m for fairness, and we don’t have that. We’re going all the way with our accusations and our facts. All along I’ve been saying the system is corrupt. Now we’re going to prove that…”
The media could then be accused of direct complicity in stealing the election.
So…how do the networks decide who wins an election? Buckle up. Here is a concise description from Wikipedia. Notice that the media are basically getting their vote-info from…themselves:
“The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of American news organizations formed in 2003 to provide ‘information on Election Night about the vote count, election analysis and election projections.’ Member companies consist of ABC News, the Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News. The organization relies on the Associated Press to perform vote tabulations and contracted with Edison Research and Mitofsky International to ‘make projections and provide exit poll analysis.’ Edison Research has provided this data since 2004.
“The precursor was Voter News Service, which was disbanded in 2003, after controversies over the 2000 and 2002 election results. The NEP plan is largely the suggestion of CNN, which used Edison/Mitofsky as consultants in the past. Mitofsky headed the original pool that preceded VNS.
“The organizers of the pool insist that the purpose of their quick collection of exit poll data is not to determine if an election is flawed, but rather to project winners of races. Despite past problems, they note that none of their members has incorrectly called a winner since the current system was put in place. However, to avoid the premature leaking of data, collection is now done in a ‘Quarantine Room’ at an undisclosed location in New York. All participants are stripped of outside communications devices until it is time for information to be released officially.”
Doesn’t that warm the cockles of your heart and give you great confidence?
Back in 2012, I wrote this about Edison Research and Mitofsky:
“Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts.
“Edison and Mitofsky issued a later report explaining how the disparity could have occurred; they tried to validate their own exit-poll data and the vote-count, which was like explaining a sudden shift in ocean tides by saying clouds covered the moon. It made no sense.”
But wait. Even though media giants are getting their election-night info from themselves, they must be basing that info on actual vote counts in the 50 states, as reported by the secretaries of states. Right? Read the last two paragraphs again. The exit polls differed greatly from the vote counts.
And remember, if widespread electronic vote fraud occurs on election night (read my previous piece on the crooked GEMS vote-tabulating system used across the US in 25% of the vote), the early media projections of a Presidential winner will serve to cut off any doubt about, or investigation into, the veracity of the GEMS system.
Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
Paul, Trump and Sanders Show Elite Control of Society Has Fractured
Source: TheDailyBell.com
October 12, 2016
Republican Politicians Have Only Their Fears to Blame … In calls this morning, many Rs privately want to defect from Trump. But they say the debate gave them pause since he roused their base. … Remember, there were already an unusual number of high-profile Republicans who had broken with their own nominee, with many saying they would support Hillary Clinton and others just refusing to vote for Trump. Why did it take so long for the rejection to build? -Bloomberg
Bloomberg thinks rejecting Trump is an obvious choice for Republicans but this article doesn’t recognize the larger trend is to reject modern Republicanism itself.
This really started with the GOP’s removal of conservative libertarian candidate Ron Paul from political contention by intimidating his supporters and unilaterally changing and suspending rules. This sort of approach to non GOP-approved candidates has continued with Trump.
Ron Paul, who wanted to educate more than he wanted to win, was nonetheless squashed by a variety of evil and panicked GOP attacks. Donald Trump recast many of Ron Paul’s views but basically moved down Ron Paul’s political track and due to his celebrity and wealth succeeded where Ron Paul had failed.
Ron Paul was anti-tax, anti-central bank and anti-war. So is Trump, though Trump is closer to the elite mainstream than Paul. But the GOP leadership is pro-tax (though it pretends not to be) … also pro-central bank and pro-war.
The GOP leadership and the Democratic leadership are aligned on most points. It’s the details that are different. But the bulk of GOP supporters take GOP rhetoric at face value. They are specifically, legitimately libertarian in many ways.
The difference lies in the support of the military, but even here, GOP support at the base is far more nuanced than GOP leadership. Support for American wars involves perceptions of necessity. In other words, there is not unlimited support.
Both Ron Paul and now Trump hold views that are in many ways closer to the views of the GOP base. This is why Ron Paul was so successful when he ran a second time after people came to understand his views. This is why Trump has been successful.
More:
This is what responsible Republican leaders (or just self-interested ones) needed to do early this year: Get over their exaggerated fear of their voters and get behind a tolerable candidate such as Marco Rubio or John Kasich (or, earlier, Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or even Bobby Jindal or Rick Perry or whomever).
Or they could have bit the bullet in late spring, when they still had the option of Ted Cruz and Kasich. Or they could have denied Trump the nomination, even after the primaries were over. They had enough votes collectively to do that. Trump was far short of the majority he needed without additional support from the Republican National Committee.
This excerpt above represents a complete misunderstanding about what’s going on. Voters have simply decided that mainstream politics is ineffective and destructive.
This is why Bernie Sanders did so well as an “outsider” along with Paul and Trump. It is a trend that’s not going away. It’s getting stronger, if anything.
Now just because we recognize a trend doesn’t mean either party is going to fall in line with popular sentiment. The rhetoric may shift a little but taxes, regulations and government intrusions into daily life will continue and expand. This is in true not just for the US but for the West generally.
But the Internet itself has verbalized what’s actually wrong with leadership positions and this process will continue even if the Internet itself is censored.
Growing Concerns About Russia’s Electronic Warfare Capabilities…
GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
August 25, 2016
Ever since the USS Donald Cook incident, there’s been growing concern – finally being voiced by American and Western military leaders – that Russia’s capabilities in electronic warfare, and in particular the ability to jam western communications and radar – is far more sophisticated than once thought, and now the concerns are over new “invisibility” technologies Russia is allegedly developing:
What interests me here is something far beyond the invisibility assertion. What interests me rather are the assessments of Russian capabilities, first revealed in the USS Donald Cook incident. You’ll recall that an old Russian Sukhoi-24 fighter bomber approached the US naval frigate in the Black Sea, when suddenly the ship’s electronics and computer systems went down. The Russian jet then made no less than twelve passes over the American ship on mock attack runs. At the time, US authorities denied the two events were linked, even as the Donald Cook made for the nearest Rumanian port of Constanza for “rest and repairs”, also, we were assured, having nothing to do with the incident. In short, we were being told that the old Russian fighter has nothing whatsoever to do with the equipment and electronics failure on the frigate.
Nothing to see here, nothing to be concerned about, move along.
But now, if one reads the article closely, it appears that some military leaders are challenging that narrative:
Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the commander of the US army in Europe, has described Russian advances in electronic warfare in Syria and Ukraine – a field in which they were typically supposed to be backward – as “eye watering”.
[…] Moscow is now deploying anti-aircraft systems in Crimea… It is doing so, he says, in a way that makes it “very, very difficult” for Nato planes to gain access safely to areas including parts of Poland.
Mr Putin has relished pointing out the significance of the West seeing “for the first time that these weapons do exist, that they are of high quality, and that we have well-trained people who can put them to effective use. They have now seen, too, that Russia is ready to use them…”
The article itself goes on to put this in perspective:
These unbelievably powerful applications in electromagnetic (EMF) warfare are game changers, and Russia has made significant strides in dominating the war zones of the future, for better or worse.
Russia has been shutting down and disabling U.S. ships and equipment around the world.
So where’s the high octane speculation here?
Well, note that Russia has been revealing and using these technologies operationally and tactically, not strategically. But their mere existence and the Russians’ willingness to reveal their existence by demonstrable use, against American targets, has got to have the midnight oil burning in the Pentagram and American intelligence agencies. And what probably has them concerned is, given the fact that the Russians were supposed to be “behind” in such capabilities, when in fact, they’re demonstrably not, raises the stakes and implications considerably, for this might mean it has an unrevealed strategic capability of a similar nature. and such an unrevealed strategic capability would mean that those neocon hopes and deliberations for “first strike” use of nuclear weapons might not turn out so well. To put it as plainly as possible…
Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_______________________________________________________________
Princeton Professor Shows How Easy It Is To Hack An Election In Just 7 Minutes
[Editor’s Note]
As if what the following article suggests isn’t enough, here is additional data that shows what a fallacy voting is:
ELECTION RIGGING 101 – Election Shocker: Is This How The Election Will Be Rigged? | JonRappoport
Source: ActivistPost.com
Claire Bernish
August 8, 2016
A professor from Princeton University and a graduate student just proved electronic voting machines in the U.S. remain astonishingly vulnerable to hackers — and they did it in under eight minutes.
In fact, Professor Andrew Appel and grad student Alex Halderman took just seven minutes to break into the authentic Sequoia AVC Advantage electronic voting machine Appel purchased for $82 online — one of the oldest models, but still in use Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia, Politico reported.
After Halderman picked the hulking, 250-pound machine’s lock in seven seconds flat, Appel wrested its four ROM chips from a circuit board — an easy feat, considering the chips weren’t soldered in place.
Once freed, Appel could facilely replace the ROM chips with his own version “of modified firmware that could throw off the machine’s results, subtly altering the tally of votes, never to betray a hint to the voter,” Politico’s Ben Wofford explained.
Appel and a team of other so-called cyber-academics have hacked into various models of electronic voting machines in order to prove to the public the equipment is ridiculously bereft of security. Together with Ed Felten, Appel and a group of Princeton students “relentlessly hacked one voting machine after another … reprogramming one popular machine to play Pac-Man; infecting popular models with self-duplicating malware; [and] discovering keys to voting machine locks that could be ordered on eBay.”
Their efforts have gone largely ignored for 15 years.
But now, thanks to the explosion of controversy from revealing documents hacked from the DNC — and as-yet unproven accusations of Russian involvement — Appel and his colleagues’ persistence has finally garnered the attention it deserves.
If primaries were successfully rigged through corporate media collusion and behind-the-scenes coordination between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, voters will certainly wonder what’s in store when they cast ballots using deeply-vulnerable electronic voting machines.
Perhaps that lack of security prompted the Department of Homeland Security to declare electronic voting machines part of U.S. “critical infrastructure” this week — a designation generally reserved for 16 sectors, including transportation systems, dams, and utilities, among other things — deemed “so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”
Now that attention has been given to the ease with which a number of popular, still-employed voting machines can be compromised, officials and voters alike have expressed grave concerns about the upcoming election.
“This isn’t a crazy hypothetical anymore,” Dan Wallach, a computer science professor at Rice and veteran of the team of Princeton ‘hackers,’ noted. “Once you bring nation states’ cyber activity into the game?” he hinted of potential Russian connections to the DNC hack and possible implications of foreign meddling in the national election. “These machines, they barely work in a friendly environment.”
Thirty-one prominent security experts with the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Group issued a statement in response to the DNC hack at the end of July, imploring precautions be taken because “[o]ur electoral process could be a target for reckless foreign governments and terrorist groups.”
“Look, we could see 15 years ago that this would be perfectly possible,” Appel told Wofford. “It’s well within the capabilities of a country as sophisticated as Russia.”
He added ominously, “Actually, it’s well within the capabilities of much less well-funded and sophisticated attackers.”
Electronic voting machines hit the U.S. electoral process in full force following the ‘hanging chad’ controversy in the Bush-Gore race in 2000, in which ballots had to be hand-counted. Ludicrous pictures inundated the news, showing elections officials assiduously examining paper ballots to determine if partially-punched choices equated actual votes in the tight race — a scene officials hoped electronic voting machines would avoid repeating.
But those machines presented notorious problems of their own.
As Wofford explained:
The Princeton group has a simple message: That the machines that Americans use at the polls are less secure than the iPhones they use to navigate their way there. They’ve see the skeletons of code inside electronic voting’s digital closet, and they’ve mastered the equipment’s vulnerabilities perhaps better than anyone (a contention the voting machine companies contest, of course). They insist the elections could be vulnerable at myriad strike points, among them the software that aggregates the precinct vote totals, and the voter registration rolls that are increasingly digitized. But the threat, the cyber experts say, starts with the machines that tally the votes and crucially keep a record of them — or, in some cases, don’t.
Because this electronic equipment is now horribly outdated — some machines’ manufacturers no longer offer tech support — and considered, in large part, a ‘failed experiment,’ much has been phased out for better options. But not completely — and those better options still can be easily tampered with, according to Appel and his team.
Indeed, the issues with electronic voting methods are too voluminous to recount in a single article, though Wofford does provide a thorough, albeit lengthy, summary here.
As voters prepare to putatively choose the next American president in November, tales of rigged elections — from the primaries to the presidency — continue to top headlines across the country. With the sheer mountain of political funny business already evidenced this year, electronic voting machines don’t offer anywhere near the sound comfort of retribution the voting public craves.
Read More At: ActivistPost.com
Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.
TheBreakAway 