532. We need an honest, transparent election (Iowa Primary lesson 1) (1/13/07)
Obama wins Iowa - a state with 92% white population. Why a white state which generally considered conservative has elected a black candidate? It means American people are too resentful to the policy of current government. They hate Iraq war and the loss of civil right.
How can we have this result? Because Iowa Democratic Primary Caucus is an honest, transparent one. Residents gathered at the site on time to discuss their choices then raise their hands. The counting is present, direct and clear. Voters know the result right away. It makes an election hard to be rigged.
As we have seen the mainstream of public opinion is to change the status quo, then Ron Paul should have won the Iowa Republican Caucus too. He has more distinctive flag than Obama has. But he only got 10%. Why? He obviously lost to a corruptive vote system in Iowa Republican Primary - ballot counting.
The ballot was counted by election office. Then an officer would tell you the result. A number can be faked or altered easily. Voters can hardly verify it individually.
This is proved in New Hampshire Primary:
Quote, "Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H
By admin | January 8, 2008
Sutton with 100% reporting reported 0 votes for paul but poster in Sutton posted:
My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know???
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=655#more-655
Greenville Vote Discrepancy SAME as Sutton
Moreover, when Sutton had been found out, they quickly added 31 votes, and cited ‘human error.’ What is their excuse for this source, now showing Greenville at 25 votes:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/...egory=news0807
The problem is, you have to take what they told you but can't verify it. They could tell you it's zero, that forgery is easy to be find out. They could also tell you it's 31 (or 25) then it is hard for you to confirm it's a rigging while the real votes may be 131 or 125.
-----------------
This is a covert totalitarian country. They select president by rigged election. (They control the voting office by intelligence) and justify the result by fake poll. (They manipulate public opinion by media)
533. "Change" what? (Iowa lesson 2, A covert totalitarian) (1/18/08)
Obama won Iowa Demo Caucus with a great victory, a big conflict to what poll predicted that Clinton led other Demo candidates. He owes the victory to "people want a change". The other candidates, Clinton and Edwards, also followed to claim that they are for "change" too. The ridiculous thing is, nobody dares to say what they try to change. It's a taboo. The utmost limit they could go is "to change the status quo". That's it. They stopped here.
What is the status quo? Let's review seven years since Bush stole the seat of US president. In his regime, US suffered 911 attack which now majority of American people think government more or less involved in. With that as justification he activated two wars in Mid-east: war on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. The government also passed Patriot Act - a law that seriously hurt civil rights of people. Bush also signed a lot of Presidential Directive and executive order to expand police power and erode civil liberty. In his ruling, torture and warrantless eavesdropping blossom and prosper. What else has he achieved? A high national debt you have to pay later.
So what is mainstream of public opinion for "change"? Simple, abandon the war policy, (withdraw from Iraq), invest money in domestic society (spend more for society than on war expense) and recover civil liberty. But even such a simple opinion became a taboo, a scarcity for candidates. They dare not to put it at the point of slogan. All they can do is shout "change". Change what? They dare not say.
In fact, despite most of GOP candidates (belongs to Bush regime, the target of change) the current leading Demo candidates are the same. Hillary and Edwards, both voted for Patriot Act and Iraq War authorization Bill. In this main point, they are no difference to Bush. How hypocrite they are when they cried "change". They should be the target of change. Even Obama is a puppet too. He voted for Patriot Act and voted for the bill for funding the Iraq war, although he voted against Iraq war authorization bill. People have nothing else to choose. Among three rotten apples, they have to choose the lesser one.
The only candidate with a distinctive flag is Ron Paul. He is anti - Iraq war and insists the value of civil liberty. But in a covert totalitarian, a disfavor of the Inside group will never win in a manipulated election.
Not only candidates dare not speak out what people are thinking, (maybe due to the media censorship) the Iraq war and civil rights topic are also the taboo of media. In election news from mainstream media (in my area, Mercury News which I collected a pile of newspaper) there are a lot of report about religious topic, immigration or medicare or sometimes even about economy. All these are long existed problem not related to Bush regime much. They just avoid to touch the topic of Iraq war and civil liberty. (notice what TV and newspaper report on campaign news)
"Change". Change what? Ask your candidate.
It's sad to see such a phenomenon. Candidate shout of "change" but dare not say what to change. That is totalitarian. People, candidates dare not speak up. Then an election became a puppet show. The Inside Group pick up candidate through rigged election. (Feds controlled election office) and make people believe the result through fake poll. (manipulated media).