The government is promising that information that is gathered about you when you travel will not be privy to them, or anyone else — other than the commercial company that gathers and checks the data.

Now, let's see here... They lied to us about your Social Security number being used as an ID number. They've lied to us about the Cuban Missile Crisis. They've lied to us about the so-called Civil War. World Wars I and II, the Korean War, Vietnam and the P.O.W. situation. They continue to lie about the Gulf War and "Gulf War Syndrome". They lied to us about Waco and the Branch Davidians, as well as the Oklahoma City bombing. They routinely lie to us about the environment, endangered species, and clean water and air. They lie to us about September 11th and the war on terror. They lie to us when they say that they are fighting a war to defend freedom, while they are, in fact, taking ours away. They lie to us and say that the economy is improving, when unemployment has sky-rocketed, and the few who have jobs are paid minimum wage or slightly better.

They lied when they said that Census Bureau statistics wouldn't be sold or disclosed to parties or firms outside of government.

They have even set up an office at the Pentagon — The Office of Strategic Influence — whose purpose is to lie.

So, let me see here... Tell me again why should I believe them when they promise that information that their hired firms gather about us will not be shared with the government agencies or other firms?

The program is called the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System (CAPPS), and like all other Homeland Security Department measures, it is supposed to give us all the warm, fuzzy impression that our government cares about us and they only want to make us feel safe.

Given the fact that they, and the bogeymen from which they are purportedly attempting to protect us, are one and the same I don't believe I surrendering any rights to privacy or freedom is wise.

It's not that I have anything to hide. I just believe that if I don't want to have my business known, it shouldn't be assumed that I'm hiding something.

When someone "secures" something, they tie it down so that it cannot move. The Office of Homeland Security is doing that with your right to travel. Step by step, they are making it impossible to travel, due to endless security checks and restrictions. Meanwhile, they keep promising that we will be on the receiving end of another attack.

Now, I don't know about you, but I feel safer already!

If the Office of Homeland Security wants to do something about making the U.S.A. a safer place, how about letting the world take care of its own problems and calling our military back home? How about placing that same military on the borders of our country to stem the tide of illegal immigrants that are flooding into this country?

I am amused after reading this article in the Chinese media, suggesting that the United States is not being fair enough with China with regard to trade policies.

A person is hard-pressed to enter a store today and find a good to purchase that isn't made in China. Yet, according to them, we aren't doing enough. It never will be until the U.S.A. has nothing, and we are poverty-stricken just like every other country. That's the whole purpose of NAFTA. It is to implement the United Nations Agenda 21.

Marxists believe that the disparity between the haves and the have-nots must be bridged in order for the world to be fair. The United States has been a country of haves for too long.

Therefore, in an effort to lower the standard of living for Americans, they have pushed through our Congress, trade policies which favor developing countries and are clearly biased against American interests.

The Boston Globe is reporting that several states are now scrapping their Presidential primary elections.

Quoting:

Several states have moved to drop their presidential primaries next year, worried about costs in tight financial times and wondering whether the political exercise would serve any purpose. Some states say they cannot afford the millions of dollars it takes to put on an election. Others say the decisions reflect the lopsided nature of modern primaries: The front-runner gets anointed by the media and campaign donors after the first few state primaries, and the rest of the primaries are formalities.

The truth of the matter is that the whole concept of a presidential election today is a formality. The Ruling Elite control the numbers on a national level and put the Presidents, and Congressmen into their positions of power. And if any did happen to slip through the cracks and not go along with the globalists' agenda, they tend to have airplane crashes, mysteriously commit suicide, or hit trees when skiing.

And now we have computerized voting being implemented in each state. Under this system of voting, every aspect of our elections can be controlled. So not only will the primaries be irrelevant, so will the general elections.

It was some time back in August, when I happened across an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which reported that the head of Diebold, Incorporated had addressed a letter to Republicans stating that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year".

Ordinarily such a statement by a corporate CEO would have been met with a yawn, but this was no ordinary CEO. For at the moment he dictated his letter to his secretary, Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold, Incorporated was trying to sell his computerized voting machines to the state of Ohio. His affirmation of commitment to "help Ohio deliver" the votes raised eyebrows among Democrats. Given the fact that his software has already been analyzed and found to be flawed beyond the point of repair by researchers at John Hopkins and Rice Universities, it should have raised eyebrows regardless of political affiliation.

I commented about these studies in an article I wrote in July of last year, and which appeared on the Sweet Liberty site. After reading the article, Jackie Patru asked me to appear on her shortwave broadcast to discuss the subject. We talked about the Hopkins/Rice study, which examined Diebold's electronic voting system at the precinct level.

Unfortunately, we ran out of time before I was able to discuss the Beverly Harris analysis. Beverly Harris' study picks up where the Hopkins/Rice study ends.

In the Hopkins/Rice study, they admit that they only had obtained the computer code that was designed to run at the precinct level. After the votes were cast there, they had to be transported to the county seat where they are tallied. Diebold stated in one of their rebuttals to the Hopkins/Rice study, that at no time are the precinct systems connected to an unsecured phone line or the internet. They state that they are placed on a memory card and transported to the county office for tallying. What they failed to mention, however, was that the systems at the county office do receive software "updates" through some sort of telephony connection.

Harris' examination of Diebold's GEMS system — the system that runs at the county level — reveals how votes can be changed, passwords bypassed, and audit trails altered.

In the GEMS system, Harris found three separate ledgers in which vote tallying is used. For accounting purposes, she states, only one ledger should be needed, as it is never beneficial to have an extra set of books.

Ledger 1, according to Harris, keeps track of the actual votes. At the same time ledger 2 mirrors the first ledger. Ledger 3 she refers to as the "Lord only knows" ledger.

Being that the actual votes are tracked in ledger 1, one would assume that would be the ledger from which the official results would be drawn. Not so. The official results come from ledger 2, which just so happens to be the ledger that can be modified with an ordinary data base editor.

Harris then demonstrates how easily this would be done without any trace of evidence.

As I stressed back in July, even if everything that Diebold states about their election software is true, and it is above board and secure, how can we be sure they're telling us the truth unless they open up their systems to scrutiny?

They state that to do this, would be a potential security breach, since ill-intentioned individuals might be able to discover holes in the system and exploit them. I say that it would make their system more secure in two ways.

First, the element of secrecy is removed which lessens the probability that the system can be utilized for mischief by villains both inside and outside of the halls of power.

Secondly, I assert that allowing independent computer scientists to examine their work and suggest new ways of hardening security will work in the company's favor. I believe there are many experts in the field who would gladly consider it their patriotic duty to volunteer time to scrutinize a system that has the potential of deciding the destiny of their posterity.

However, Diebold will not open their latest computer code to the scrutiny of the public. And according to Jackie Patru, the courts have ruled that they are not required to do so.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that if the companies who offer these systems for voting continue to refuse to open their systems to public inspection, we ought to refuse to accept computerized voting systems. And I urge everyone to write your state legislators and ask them to reject all computerized voting initiatives if they are introduced.

Aside from that, there are three principles that I see as necessary to promote honest elections in every state.

1. We must return to a system of counting votes, whereby clear plastic boxes are utilized with paper ballots, written in ink.

2. If this is absolutely impossible, then we must pass legislation stating that no computerized voting system can be certified for use in elections without the company first opening up its entire system — especially and including the source code — to public and private inspection, analysis, scrutiny, and debate.

3. The public must be allowed and encouraged to verify the integrity of the process by overseeing the process at every level.

I cannot stress the importance of this issue. If we lose control of our state and local governments, we will have no recourse to stop the United Nations system, which is already being quickly instituted in America today. Property rights, including the right to clean water, air, and the ability to grow your own food, will be the privilege of an elite few, given to them by their masters of global governance.

For further reading:

• Bev Harris report on Diebold's GEMS election system
  
• Pandora's Black Box: Did It Really Count Your Vote?

Offend a liberal today! Say ANYTHING.