As several states are "upgrading" their election systems — switching from punch card ballots to some type of electronic voting system — security flaws in the computerized voting systems persist.

I commented in March of last year about how the States were implementing flawed elections systems. I strongly urge you to go back and read the article for background.

In that article, I wrote about an analysis that was done by John Hopkins and Rice Universities which found Diebold's computerized elections systems to be flawed beyond the point of repair, at the precinct level. These experts had concluded that the version of the software that they had obtained could not be fixed. It would have to be scrapped.

Then, in November, I followed up with Computerized Voting: What You're Not Being Told, in which I quoted from Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.com. Harris had examined the Diebold Election Systems software that is run at the county level, and she discovered there were two extra ledgers. The ledger from where the official results are drawn could be modified without leaving any trace of evidence.

The controversy over security flaws are especially interesting given the statement of commitment by Diebold Incorporated's head guru. In an article which appeared in the August 28, 2003 edition of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell said he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

This raised many eyebrows considering O'Dell's position and the controversy surrounding his company's voting machines. Many wondered just how far-reaching Mr. O'Dell's commitment stretched.

As was pointed out in Pandora's Black Box: Did It Really Count Your Vote?, there are so many ways in which computer code can be rigged, without ever being detected, that one has to wonder how computer systems could ever be trusted to handle such a critical job as an election.

Computers can be programmed to only switch votes at certain times of day. This means that when they are tested prior to the opening of the polls, they would perform flawlessly. They can be programmed to change vote results, or the ratios of the votes when "triggered" to do so by some event, such as a special pattern in a particular ballot.

The possibilities are literally endless! And the companies who produce the software and the systems rarely open their computer code for public inspection. So there is no way to verify whether or not they have built in trap doors.

Diebold officials state that the system that was the subject of the John Hopkins/Rice study, never connected to the internet or an insecured phone line. They say that vote results are transferred by memory card from the precinct to the county office.

Assuming that you can trust that the memory card wouldn't somehow be switched or tampered with during transit, that doesn't negate the fact that the Diebold GEMS system — according to Bev Harris and according to a Wired News article — does connect through the phone lines to county servers, where the votes are tabulated.

How do we know that the votes aren't being changed remotely?

The fact that these computerized voting systems operate within a shroud of secrecy should be a cause for concern among all Americans. The only way the American people can ever be certain that their elections are honest, is if the entire process is subject to public scrutiny. And that can never happen under a computerized election system, as companies are not required to open their computer code for inspection.

The states are only required to change to these new systems if and when they accept the federal funding that was authorized in a piece of legislation, passed by Congress, called the "Help America Vote Act". If they don't accept the funding, they are free to refuse to switch. And not switching to a system that has been repeatedly found to be insecure and subject to tampering, in this writer's opinion, is wise.

The 2000 election was the "crisis" that created "the need" to revamp our nation's election system. I believe it was a created crisis for the purpose of implementing a system of voting that could be easily controlled.

It is my belief that these systems are designed to be insecure. I believe that there are holes in the system on purpose. I believe that there is an effort to hijack the elections on a state and local level. I am certain that national elections are already controlled. State and local elections are the real target, in my opinion.

Under computerized voting, every election from dog-catcher to President can be easily rigged. And in many cases, with no paper trail.

This brings me to a Wired article, headline: E-Vote Still Flawed, Experts Say

Quote:

Computer security experts hired to hack electronic voting machines manufactured by Diebold Election Systems found that flaws in the machines could result in malicious insiders or outsiders stealing an election.

The findings, released in a report late Thursday afternoon, culminated a weeklong test undertaken by security experts at Raba Technologies, a firm hired by Maryland's legislative services department to hack the voting machines. The report (PDF) stated that the Diebold machines did accurately count the votes but could be compromised.

The authors concluded that Diebold's software would need to be rewritten to satisfy security standards but could be made sufficiently secure in time for Maryland's March primary election.

William Arbaugh, a University of Maryland assistant professor of computer science who participated in the test, graded the system an "F," "with the possibility of raising it to a 'C' with extra credit -- that is, if they follow the recommendations we gave them." ....

"I was really surprised with the totality of the problems we found. Just about everywhere we looked we found them," Arbaugh said.

Diebold officials could not be reached directly for comment. But in a press release, the company said Thursday that the study "validates" the Diebold election systems for the primary.

What am I missing? The experts said the software would have to be rewritten in order to be made to be secure for the primary. How does that validate the election system for the primary?

I cannot help but feel that our election system in America is being hijacked before our very eyes.

They're selling easily-compromised computers and software for voting, while telling the naive American public that it must be done to make elections secure.

That's kind of like when they take away our freedoms, while telling us they're doing it to preserve our freedom. Of course, the American people are far too smart to fall for that, aren't they?

CBS News is reporting at this hour that anywhere from 22 to 30 G.I.s in Iraq have committed suicide. Most after major combat operations. According to the report, the emotional toll in Iraq has become rather high for soldiers stationed there. Too high. Some are now suggesting that a government cover-up of the growing problem of G.I. suicide is underway.

The CBS report comes as the BBC reports that former senior US weapons inspector, David Kay, has said intelligence that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was false. "It turns out we were all wrong," he said, "and that is most disturbing."

It's not disturbing, Mr. Kay. It's criminal.

I will be on the air on Sweet Liberty tonight with Jackie Patru.

The program starts in a few minutes.

Sweet Liberty
Time: 9 PM Eastern / 0100 U.T.C.
Satellite: Galaxy 13, Transponder 16, Audio 7.70
Shortwave: WWCR 5.070 MHz
Internet: Live streamed and archived at www.sweetliberty.org/audio/

A cousin of mine, who I respect greatly, recently discovered this website. She sent me an e-mail asking me what I think of Bill O'Reilly.

After typing my response, I felt compelled to share my answer with everyone, as I believe it defines the problems and the purpose of all of the controlled opposition — including those on Fox News Channel.

The question was:

I was wondering what your opinion was of Bill O'Reilly, if you are familiar with who he is? And what do you see as an answer to the problems you have sited?

My response follows thusly:

Yes, I know who Bill O'Reilly is. My opinion of him is the same as my opinion of Rush Limbaugh and all of the phony conservatives. He says some things that sound good. But he'll never get to the root of the real problem.

He talks about the border problem, but does he ever really report the fact that we have a border problem by design? Does he ever report that under NAFTA the illegals flooding into this country are considered "migrant workers" and not illegal aliens?

I've heard him rant about the fact that Allen Greenspan has too much power and is accountable to no one. But does he ever talk about what the Federal Reserve System is, what it is designed to do -- namely bankrupt this country and all of its citizens?

It doesn't really matter for whom you cast your vote, the fact is that both political parties are controlled by the same international gangsters. Presidents have their policy dictated to them. And if they don't comply, they aren't around for very long. But Bill O'Reilly won't talk about that. If he did, he wouldn't be on the air for very long.

Has he talked about George W. Bush's profiteering from the war on terror? Has he talked about the fact that the blueprint for the war on terror was written before the 2000 election fiasco for George W. Bush? And the fact that this blueprint laid out the plan for American imperialism and world domination? The blueprint called for regime changes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others countries. Most notably, communist China was marked for regime change. It is my understanding that China and Russia have a friendship treaty that if one of them go to war, the other will fight with them. We are being led into another world war, our military has been mostly shipped out of this country, and we are being invaded from the south because our borders are not secure. And it's all by design.

Why has Bill's "no spin zone" continued to perpetrate the lie that September 11th was caused by 19 hijackers with boxcutters, when the evidence is so overwhelming that it was a conspiracy at the highest levels of the U.S. government? It was done to create the necessary crisis -- the crisis of "terrorism" -- to serve as the pretense for the U.S. invasion into every country that refuses to surrender to the international globalists. As George W. Bush himself said, "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists." Who are the people that G.W.B. speaks of, when he uses the word "us"? And what is his definition of the word "terrorists"?

Does Bill O'Reilly talk about the Congressional testimony that took place in the late 1990's, by John Maresca of Unocal Oil, which outlined the need for a regime change in Afghanistan so that a pipeline could be built and run through that country? I doubt that O'Reilly connects those dots. Am I, and hundreds like me more clever than Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the neo-cons at Fox News Channel? Or are they just deliberately ignoring the truth so that the American people remain in the dark, until it is too late?

I could go on and on here, but suffice it to say that we are being set up for a huge crisis, the effects of which will be devastating. And no one in the mainstream media is really reporting how dire the situation is, because they all are CONTROLLED. And Bill O'Reilly is no exception. He is yet another mouthpiece for the New World Order crowd. His job is to sound good, so that the average American believes there is a viable alternative to the usual socialist media. The reality is they ALL ARE CONTROLLED.

As far as what answers that I have to offer: I would say that getting informed is of utmost importance. You have to have a strong stomach to be able to face the truth. The circumstance is very dark and dire. However, Jesus said the truth will set us free. If we don't know the truth, we don't stand a chance.

The second solution is to wake up as many people as possible to what is really going on. They may think you're a kook at first, but if you're armed with documentation, they won't be able to argue with you.

Finally, we have to get active in our state and local governments. The only way that we can control the federal government, is through the state governments. It may not be as hard as it sounds. There are some other small groups of people that are working very effectively in various states. I would love to get something started in Michigan. Additionally, all of the United Nations mandates for the curtailment of our private property rights are being implemented at the state and local levels. Lawmakers are largely ignorant of the dangers. They need the citizenry to inform and educate them.

I wrote more to my cousin on a personal level, but the essence of my dissertation has been shared here.

One thing that I forgot to mention in my response is that I have heard Bill O'Reilly openly advocate a "strong central government". This philosophy is in stark contrast to the spirit of the United States Constitution. It was in that document — which is arguably the most anti-government document in the history of mankind — that strict limitations were placed upon the central (or federal) government. And just to be certain that there was no misunderstanding, the Founders stated in the tenth amendment that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The federal government is a creature of the states. It wasn't the other way around.

The fact that the truth is a threat to the plan for global governance is the reason that the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys, and the Bill O'Reillys exist. Their purpose is to make it appear that you're getting the truth when, in fact, they just touch upon some of the issues, rarely delving beneath the surface. And they will never offer any direction when it comes to solutions.

If the American people fail to know what the problems really are, how can they effectively tackle them? If they fail to know who their real enemies and who the real terrorists are, then how can they respond, accordingly? And isn't that the real purpose of the "no spin zone"? To keep Americans in the dark?

Socialism never solves any problem. Socialism is designed to either create a problem where none formally existed, or to take an existing problem and aggrivate it. It's purpose then, is to provide for government an inroad to manage the problem, and hence the population, who is detrimentally affected by it.

As the problem continues to worsen, government will always produce new ideas to counter the trend. All of these ideas, when implemented, will always cost more money and often result in a larger bureaucracy — more government, more control.

When the previous "solutions" fail to deliver the necessary results, the excuse will be that we are not spending enough. Thus, the taxpayers will be expected to cough up more of their hard-earned dollars to feed a beast which is ever-expanding in size and power. And the problem — which was the original excuse for the worthless, money-consuming bureaucracy — reaches the level of crisis. This crisis then provides more fuel for governmental proposals which will cost more money, and be just as ineffective. So goes the spiral of socialism. It continues to seek more power and more revenue until those who live under its heavy burden can no longer sustain it, without lowering their standard of living. Even then, it will continue unabated until the ultimate end is universal poverty.

Former U.S. President, Ronald Reagan truthfully said:

"The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away."

He also said:

"No government voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs once launched, never disappear. Actually, a goverment bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on earth."

Ronald Reagan knew well the subject of which he spoke. Under his "leadership", the U.S. national debt went from eight-hundred, forty-five billion ($845,116,000,000) on December 31, 1979 — before Reagan took office — to more than $2.6 Trillion ($2,602,337,712,041) on September 30, 1988, near the end of his presidency.

And the trend continued to shoot upwards during Reagan's successor, George Herbert Walker Bush. On his watch, the debt nearly doubled, reaching over $4 Trillion ($4,064,620,655,521) on September 30th of 1992.

The Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world would quickly point out that the Congress was controlled by Democrats during both administrations. However, that doesn't negate the fact that many of the spending initiatives were proposed at the executive level, then approved by the Congress. Perhaps, that is why there were so many "Reagan-Democrats" who were said to have voted for George Bush. Reagan had demonstrated that a Republican president could work well with a Democratically-controlled Congress. While articulately denouncing big government in his speeches, Reagan helped to increase its size and debt, mortgaging the future of America's children.

Socialism never solves any problem. It only creates more problems, and ultimately leads to poverty for every country who engages in it.

Or as Ronald Reagan put it, "We must not look to government to solve our problems. Government is the problem."

And he should know. He was part of the problem.

Due to Jackie Patru's battle with the flu tonight, she had to cancel our radio program. We might pick it up next week some time. If so, I'll post the info here.

This means both radio hosts, whose programs I archive at the Sweet Liberty site, are out with the flu. I believe Chris Gerner has been struggling with it for almost a month now.

Closer to my home, my wife is just starting to recover from it after nearly a two week bout.

Jackie is in Pennsylvania, Chris is in Oklahoma, and my wife and I are in Michigan. I can only assume from this that this is a widespread outbreak.

It seems like every year, at the start of the winter season, the media says how bad they expect the flu to be. This year was no exception, so I didn't give it that much thought. The thing I noticed is that they said they expected it to be the "worst flu season in thirty years".

My question is: How did they know that? It's easy to know that type of thing in hindsight, but how could they have known it in foresight?

At any rate, I'm popping vitamins, and I'd suggest everyone else do the same. And get enough sleep at night. Your immune system is at its strongest when you well-rested.

I have been asked to join Jackie Patru on Thursday, January 22, as a guest on her broadcast Sweet Liberty. This program stems from our conversation referencing some of the issues about God's role in the events of the world.

I really do not know what specifically we will talk about. I guess we'll leave that to the Holy Spirit to sort out.

At any rate, if you care to listen, the broadcast airs at 9 PM Eastern Time on shortwave 5.070 MHz, and on satellite at Galaxy 13, Transponder 16, Audio 7.70. The program is simulcast on WXEI (95.3 FM) in Crestview, Florida.

Tune in and we'll all see what transpires.

I got off the phone a moment ago with Jackie Patru.

She had sent me a book to post on the Sweet Liberty site, and had discovered that it wasn't complete. She had called to let me know that she was sending me a revised edition.

While we talked, we got into some real deep spiritual issues — as we often have. She made the statement that God is love. Even though I really have always believed that is true, I asked her: "How do you know that?"

I've always had certain nagging questions that have never been settled. Questions about the Bible's origin and questions about God, Himself.

Yet, as I survey the reality of suffering imposed upon innocent individuals in this world, the question has to be asked: Why, God do you allow this? How could and why does He allow this type of thing to occur, if He is, in fact, a loving God?

These are the questions that I attempted to tackle when I launched my first website, Doubters Dot Net.

Having been a Christian my whole life, and having been raised in the Christian faith, belief in the Divine has been like breathing to me. He has been a companion to me during all of the times that I've been misunderstood and felt alone.

Prior to being married to a woman who was accepting of me, it was God who accepted me. It was He who stood beside me when I hurt, felt inadequate, or devoid of self-worth. Or at least I believed He was there. I believed that I felt His presence.

And yet, my questions persist.

I've always believed that the Christian church has failed in one major arena. They have failed to answer the most basic questions of the faith, and hence failed in properly equipping the saints to "always be ready" to give an answer when someone asks why they have the hope that is within them, as it says in I Peter 3:15.

We are taught at church that we must accept everything by faith. We cannot doubt, as doubting amounts to sin. And the Bible says that without faith, it is impossible to please God. Yet, how do we know that the Bible is even God's word?

It has been my belief from the beginning, that God didn't give me a brain for me to put it into neutral and not use it. If God had wanted that, would He not have made us all robots — incapable of diverse thought?

With that belief in tow, I set out to do the job that the Christian church is largely neglecting. I was going to prove everything that I had always believed to be true.

I began doing research and discovered that the evidence is really overwhelming that God exists. I also believe that there is evidence that He cares for us, and even loves us.

The evidence of the Bible's origin, however, is something with which I've had a great deal of difficulty. Christian apologists that I've read attribute the Bible's origin to the Jews. And yet the Bible portrays God as favoring the Jews over everyone else as His "chosen" people. It sounds a bit like a conflict of interest to me. If the Jews gave us the Bible, and the Bible favors the Jews over the gentiles, that makes me wonder.

I don't understand how a loving God could show favoritism to a specific group of people and still be a loving and just God.

If I, as a parent, were to "choose" one of my daughters over the other, I would be — by many people's definition — a pathetically poor parent. Sadly, many parents do this, and the scars of their "lesser" children linger often long into their adult lives. Indeed, many times the wounds never heal.

Yet, my religion has taught me that this is precisely what God has done with the Jews. He has favored them above all. And it was only when they rejected the message of salvation, would it then be presented to the gentiles. It is as if we gentiles are second-class citizens in God's heavenly kingdom.

Now, how could the standard, that so rightfully would apply to me as a parent, not rightfully apply to a Father who happens to be the Creator of the universe?

Then there is the not-so-small question of human suffering. I have been repeatedly told that God is in control of all of the affairs of mankind. I desperately want to believe that.

However, I possess a rather substantial book called the Fox's Book of Martyrs, wherein it chronicles how the saints of old were ruthlessly and brutally tortured and murdered for refusing to recant their faith. Was God in control of their circumstance? If so, it would seem to me that it could have been handled quite better than it was. But then, who am I to criticize the Almighty?

I am aware that this life is a proving ground for things yet to come. I am aware that this life is not the real deal. I am aware that there is yet something greater coming our way. I just don't understand why innocent people have to suffer so much adversity along the journey to the next level — whatever that might be.

Clergy may believe they have all the answers. Until they begin realistically addressing the issues that I've raised here, the sermons they spout from pulpits all across America mount to little more than the steam of a noisy locomotive.

Whenever there is a problem that exists in the world, you can count on government to want to stick its nose in the picture to manage it.

The New York Times is reporting that President Bush is planning a $1.5 Billion program for the promotion of marriage.

The program would — in true Marxist style — place special emphasis on low-income families. From reading the article, I gather that the stated intent is to educate the people in the program about what kind of person they need to be in order to be married.

Let's forget, for a moment, that the government creates marital trouble every day, as spouses argue over how they are going to afford to live in light of the overwhelming burden of taxation and loss of jobs, created by bad public policy.

And we'll momentarily forget about the fact that we are already spending untold billions of dollars on various other government programs that don't work, are ill-administered, and pertain to areas into which the government has no business sticking its ever-growing nose.

The fact that this worthless socialistic program comes from a Republican administration is further proof that there is no difference between the Republicans or the Democrats. The fact is that they are all Marxist-socialists, dedicated to driving the United States of America into utter and complete financial bankruptcy.

And why are we to believe that because George W. Bush begets a program that it will be any more efficient at accomplishing its stated intent? But you can bet your life that it will be supported by the same phony conservatives who would howl screams of protest if the same program had been attempted by — say, Bill Clinton.

A socialist is a socialist, whether they have a "D" or an "R" after their name, it matters not. And referring to himself as a "compassionate conservative" is an attempt by George W. Bush to mask the fact that he is really a closet communist — and there is nothing compassionate about that.

Agenda 21 is a program of the United Nations, which seeks to implement complete totalitarian control of the land and everyone who lives on it and uses it. Further, it is an agenda which attempts to control air, water, and wildlife. It is all-encompassing and it is being thrust upon us by unelected bureaucrats in federal and state environmental agencies. It could be stopped, however, at the state legislative level.

"Sustainable Development" is the goal of Agenda 21. The premise is that man cannot live without damaging the environment, wildlife, and all natural resources. Therefore, man's activities must be significantly curtailed to achieve a blissful state that is "sustainable". In all actuality, it's a convenient excuse to use the environment to take away your private property rights, your wealth, and every other right you currently enjoy.

As a part of this program, everyone must be relocated to a "sustainable community". These are communities where land use is tightly managed by housing authorities and zoning regulators. Basically, you will be told what you can do with your land.

There are many different ways that the relocation can occur. The United Nations has been rapidly swallowing up land all around the world. I read an article a while back that said that over 50 percent of the entire state of Alabama had been swallowed up by the United Nations. This is an alarming figure, as this is land that will not be available for the people to live on, farm, or otherwise own.

Article 11, Section 4 of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage describes the conditions which may entitle the United Nations to take control of property. As you will see, it pretty much covers just about any reason. It says:

"The Committee shall establish, keep up to date and publish, whenever circumstances shall so require, under the title "List of World Heritage in Danger" a list of the property appearing in the World Heritage for the conservation of which major operations are necessary and for which assistance has been requested under this convention. This list shall contain an estimate of the cost of such operations. The list may include only such property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage as is threatened by serious and specific dangers, such as the threat of disappearance caused by accelerated deterioration, large scale public or private projects..."

Too much building. Urban sprawl.

"...or rapid urban or tourist development projects; destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land; ..."

Very vague. Could be anything.

"...major alterations due to unknown causes; abandonment for any reason whatsoever;"

Again, very vague. What "alterations"? And how do they define "abandonment"?

"...the outbreak or the threat of an armed conflict;"

Does this mean that if you have guns on your property, the U.N. may take control of your land? It doesn't specify the threat of a "military" conflict. If the wording is vague, it's vague for a reason!

"...calamities and cataclysms;"

Could be anything. And finally, we have the "natural" disasters.

"...serious fires, earthquakes, landslides; volcanic eruptions; changes in water level, floods and tidal waves. The Committee may at any time, in case of urgent need, make a new entry in the List of World Heritage in Danger and publicize such entry immediately."

Great research and effort has been done in the area of weather modification. It is safe for me to say, at this point, that the weather is easily under the control of the Ruling Elite. This is not a conspiracy theory, as I have seen several websites — including some from prestigious universities — which describe the science of "cloud seeding".

The question is whether or not these so-called "natural disasters" are not so natural. In fact, could they be being created to facilitate the relocation of masses of people from their land and into "sustainable" communities?

Consider the fires that we have had during the summer months for the past several years. It is the faulty environmental agenda, which has caused our forests in the United States to become tinder boxes, ready to ignite. This environmental agenda has its roots in the United Nations.

When a wildfire occurs, under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the United Nations can designate the scorched land as a protected area. The people who had been burned out by the fire, then receive monetary encouragement to build elsewhere in a more "sustainable" community.

If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the United Nations has a world-wide network for monitoring every wildfire on the globe. It is called the Global Fire Monitoring Center.

Ask yourself: Why does the U.N. need to have a network for monitoring every fire on the globe, if they don't intend to take control of the land?

Consider also, that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has an Office of Fire and Aviation, which — according to the Global Fire Monitoring Center's website is a "is a sponsor of the UN International Forest Fire News (IFFN) and ... administers and protects 262 million acres of America's public lands, located primarily in 12 Western States."

And how are these fires being started? Could laser technology be being used?

In at least one case, a couple of years back, it started as a state agency's "controlled burn". In other words, they admitted that the government set the fire.

The truth is, we don't know how these fires are being started, but we know that the U.N. monitors them, at a great expense. Why, if not to keep track of their progress?



Statement by Environmental activist attorney Daniel Sitarz:
"Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth. Effective execution of AGENDA 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an precedented redeployment of human and financial resources."

To learn more about Agenda 21, visit Chris Gerner's excellent website, Amerikan Expose.