Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Government Fraud of the Decade -- Your Vote Doesn't Count!

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Government Fraud of the Decade -- Your Vote Doesn't Count!
26taurus
unregistered
posted July 02, 2004 01:36 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://www.bestfrauds.com/government.html

No more "good old boy" politics, and no more secret handshake deals behind our backs.

It's time to make our Governors and our Government be fair and honest with all people.

The future of our country needs to be decided by ALL American voters, not by just a few paid-off people in some states.

Yet your Government knows they can ignore your vote. Bush and his lawyers knew it. And his biased U.S. Supreme Court judges knew it too.

They used this trick to allow Bush to steal the Presidency -- by fraud and public deception.

You've been scammed!


Here are PARTS to just ONE of the informative articles on this site.

VOTING IN THE U.S. SEEMS TO BE JUST A FARCE THAT THE GOV'T LETS YOU GO THROUGH TO KEEP YOU QUIET -- WHILE THEY ARE FREE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, AND IGNORE YOU.

Don't believe it? Read on to see how you are taken for a sucker.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Fraud by Denial of "Public Rights".

Core Issue:

The crux of this issue is that we have ALL been led to believe, for more than a century, that the people's popular vote decides the President, but that is false. It is an outright public deception for the government to let people believe something that the government knows to be false -- in fact, legally, it's called perpetrating a fraud! But it has kept the masses quiet for more than 220 years, hasn't it? So it is very convenient to let people go on believing that their votes matter, when they don't.

This stunning realization was almost more than we could handle -- to think that people have been deceived for so long! We went searching for evidence to refute it, but the more we looked, the more others confirmed this sour fact. (e.g., See Michael Dorf's article which is such an excellent summary, we preserved it on our server, in case it happens to "disappear" from FindLaw.com's server -- we respect FindLaw's copyright, and highly recommend their great site to the more legally inclined).

No Constitutional Right to Vote:

So we have uncovered the sickening truth that there IS NO Constitutional right to vote. It's just a silly little ritual that legislators have been letting the public go through, for centuries, to pacify them, make them think they are deciding -- but most important of all -- keeping the people out of Congress' hair, so THEY can run and rule the country, with the person whom THEY want their "Electors" to choose.

That smacks of a dictatorship, for sure. It's revolting, it's repulsive, it's downright disgusting. If you are going to have a total monopoly over who you personally (i.e. the Senate and House Representatives of Congress) want in as President -- then fine, but at least have the honesty to tell the people that their vote is merely a token act to pacify them. Don't scam the public and let them believe that they have any say in the matter -- it's a lie, it's deception, and it's outright fraud to lead people on this way.

After grasping this realization, we looked back at the Constitution with different eyes, and saw it to be a legal document telling Congress how to run and rule over the country, and how to keep total control over what happens, irrespective of what "the people" say. Sobering indeed to realize that our "founding document" has none of the high-sounding, high-ideals and noble-principles language of the Declaration of Independence. No, the Constitution is just a political document vesting power in Congress, not giving the freedoms and liberties to the people, as our forefathers had intended.

Moreover, Congress has had 200 years to change this inequity, but has done nothing about it!

Conclusion:

Admit it -- you've been scammed by a sharp trickster, who has exposed his true colors -- he'll fight to the bitter end to get what benefits him personally, at the expense of the people, and in contempt of their "assumed right" to chose for themselves their next president. He knew you didn't have a hope of making your expectations "stick" with any court, especially the Supreme Court, where he has many Republican friends. He had nothing to lose and so much to gain. But by playing so dirty, he exposed the greatest fraud in America -- that the people have NO "right" to vote, and never have.

Now keep in mind the hypocrisy of the situation -- Clinton did FAR, FAR less than Bush's dirty trick on the public, and almost got impeached for it. All Nixon did was try to learn about his opponents' dirty tricks, and HE DID get impeached for it. As sure as you're reading this, we guarantee you that Bush will get off totally scot-free with his magnificent fraud on the U.S. public. NO ONE but our site will ever call him to task for it. That is because the media has such a wonderful way of brainwashing Americans into believing what the media says. They won't call Bush to task -- they are all owned by huge conglomerates who desperately wanted Bush in -- who were afraid of Gore's disposition to help the common man, at the expense of the huge corporate monopolies that run the media, and the U.S.

And naturally the Congress wanted Bush in, because they're now a majority of Republicans. The great partisan monopoly lives for another 8 years, while it dictates to the U.S. people. Did you know that Bush is the first Republican President in a long time to also have a Republican majority in Congress? Now there is no limiting whatever he can imagine to do! Wow! Weren't you fooled into thinking he would do what the people wanted? Sucker! He's the first Republican President in decades to have an "open ticket" to do whatever he wants, and he can now ignore you like you don't even exist! The media will always paint him in roses and absolve his sins, so you are totally powerless to do anything!


Principles Involved:

Some people will say our analysis is biased, we are Democrat, and we hate Bush. Those people are totally wrong. We have NO partisan affiliation at all. This site objectively analyses and evaluates ALL public frauds for the intent and perfection of fraud against the public. Our only interest is in waking you up to companies and situations where you are being defrauded of your money and your rights.

Had Gore done the dirty tricks on the American public that Bush did, we'd be just as critical and as willing to expose him as Bush. It is YOU people who need to wake up, that you are being defrauded by these fast, slick operators -- do something about it, if you can. It's easy to pass off the truth in this analysis as "just some biased opinion", because then you don't have to face the truth, or deal with it. That same apathy has caused Americans for more than 200 years to be scammed and defrauded wholesale by their government -- just sit by meekly, while they rip you off. When will you wake up?

The other crucial thing we have not yet discussed is the extreme corruption of our highest court in the nation -- the U.S. Supreme Court -- who is supposed to remain totally objective and unbiased. Someone needs to seriously take them to task -- maybe even impeach them -- for their disgusting display of partisan prejudice they showed in this great 2000 election fiasco. Never before had the Supreme Court interfered in the choice of President or our political future -- and now they are guilty of corrupting the future by their own personal prejudices. How so? Wake Up! The big Republicans on the Court all supported Bush's ridiculous claim of "irreparable harm", and knew full well that their stay would kill all chances of the truth of the voting being known. And the Democrats opposed it. What more proof do you need that the Supreme Court is just as deeply divided as Congress is over this childish, partisan political bickering that has obsessed modern politics?


IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted July 02, 2004 02:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Having come originally from a small state (NE) and living more recently in a large one (CA), I have to say that I think the electoral process is the best way to go for the sake of the smaller states, which I believe, is the reason why they made it by electoral process and not by popular vote. Look at a map of election results by county - it'll show you how many counties throughout the country in states OTHER THAN NY, MA, CA, FL etc, voted for GWB - together those votes made a difference over the usually liberal costal areas with the large population.

Looks to me to be yet another GWB detractor(s) using any fantasy they can come up w/ to disparage him.

Interesting how it starts off complaining about a supposed problem that is inherent to the System, something perpetrated from the beginning, yet by the last few paragraphs, it quickly changes its focus to be that some fraud was perpetrated, not as something endemic to the system itself as earlier argued, but rather by GWB, of course.

Perhaps if they left their obviously leftist agenda off the site, it might be a tad bit easier to even just consider their alarmist theory.

------------------
“The good things which belong to prosperity are to be wished, but the good things that belong to adversity are to be admired.” Seneca

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 02, 2004 02:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hello Isis, yes, the electoral college was enshrined in the Constitution from the beginning and the purpose was as you suggest to offset the power of the large states and give smaller states, population wise a vote for and in Presidential Elections.

We have all heard the nonsense that Algore won the popular vote and therefore should have been President but from the founding of our nation that concept has been rejected. Imagine that the majority of the population resided in only 2 large state, say California and Texas. If citizens of those states voted in the majority for any candidate, they would win the election and damn the rest of the country. The founders of this country were wiser than most people give them credit for.

The political left has been having a wet dream about Algore having won the popular vote for the last 3+ years but that isn't the way elections have been decided....from the beginning. It is clear from Constitutional provisions that a Republic was established and not a Democracy. We have the word of Benjamin Franklin on that fact, if we can hold on to it, and so far, we have, more or less.

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted July 02, 2004 04:49 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Never once has this lefty had a wet dream about Al Gore. Ew.

I didn't vote for him either.

IP: Logged

paras
unregistered
posted July 02, 2004 12:39 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Contrary to popular belief, you can tell a book by its cover.

Not to cast aspersions on you, 26taurus, 'cause ya know I love ya, but that site wasn't really very useful. As soon as it loaded I knew it was long on opinion and short on fact. You can tell by the Big Bold Statements With Exclamation Marks! all over it. I did read through several pages, and sure enough, it turned out to be 99% opinion with few if any supporting facts.

Sad that the *ahem* others who post here will take it to mean that anyone who shares an opinion with that site shares their lack of good reasons for that opinion.

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted July 02, 2004 12:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's just the same old tapes running on a loop - stole the election, stole the election...blah blah blah. But those same people don't like facts to cloud the issue, so they tend to be like that with many things.

Here's the way I break it down for people who insist popular vote is the way to go.

Farm issues - a big deal in the midwest (and in the traditionally non-democrat parts of CA) - city folk and country folk. There's far more city folk. If everything was done by popular vote, you'd have the coasts running the farm areas, despite having little to no interest in the needs of those farm folk, nor knowing much at all about those issues. It's about balance. They never could have gotten the smaller states to join the Union without guaranteeing them some equalizer - something to balance out the needs of everyone.

It's funny Jwhop how many people insist we're a democracy - I guess schools don't teach the concept of what a Republic is, let alone that the US is a Republic, NOT a democracy, or WHY they choose the Republic route over straight-up democracy.

What I don't understand is why those people who dislike our form of government don't go live in a country that suits them better politically. The world is full of countries with every type of goverment imaginable. Why not just go live where their governing process matches your desires more accurately?

If I were leftist, I'd be living in New Zealand right now. Seriously. I mean, if I thought the US was an Evil Empire, a farce, a waste of space, I would go live somewhere else.

Emigrating to other countries is easier than the average American might think - oh, except to France...if you're not a celebrity, well they tend to be a bit xenophobic.

------------------
“The good things which belong to prosperity are to be wished, but the good things that belong to adversity are to be admired.” Seneca

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted July 02, 2004 01:33 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Founding Fathers' Idea

quote:

Every four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. Their votes will be recorded and counted, and winners will be declared. But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote.
The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.


My porblem with this process is the last statement made. When an elector votes contrary to the people's decision of their state, they are (IMHO) commiting a moral and ethical crime against those they are supposed to be represtenting. It seems in a case like this, the elector is succumbing to their own personal (or paid off) agenda.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 4782
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 02, 2004 03:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Presumaby, our elected officials are more informed about the issues than the typical voter. If we don't like what they do or how they do it, then we can vote them out of office at the next election.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 02, 2004 04:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Isis
I cringe every time I hear someone who should know better refer to our system of government as a democracy. There are many who think every issue should be submitted to the voters, a plebiscite if you will, but they don't know the evils of the tyranny of the majority and the founders of America did.

Right Randall
Every 2 years we have the opportunity to totally change the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate if we don't approve their behavior. That is probably the most potent political power in the world and it's in our hands, but only if we exercise it and vote.

IP: Logged

26taurus
unregistered
posted July 02, 2004 05:25 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is my point. I do not believe we have that power. I think we are led to believe we do. I have found this out from research, and I also feel it in my gut.

I know that I am capable of doing and thinking for myself. When you vote someone into office they are doing this for you. No one can speak for me. And as much as you like to think they have your best interests at heart - they don't.

and paras, thank you for that insight.
____________________________________________
"You could argue that the act of casting your vote means that you have voiced your opinion and that voting is a mode of expression. My argument is that a ballot is a weak form of expression. Who sees that opinion? No one knows who I voted for unless I tell them. It's dropped in a sealed box. It's just another tally mark in the end. I can voice/speak my opinion on a website and have thousands of people view it in a single day.

Who sees my ballot?

Nobody.

How often do I get to vote for President?

Every Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four.

Voting as an expressive activity is worthless. If I wanted to, I could enable the polls feature on this website and have a fictitious election. It would have the same result: no one would see who voted for who, and your opinion still wouldn't effect the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election.

I did manage to find a list of reasons for NOT voting.

On TVNewsLies.org, I found this:

You should NOT vote if:

You get your facts from corporate TV news or radio

You have no factual information about the issues

You do not hold your government accountable

You support a candidate without specific reasons

You believe what is said in “smear” campaign ads

A MISCAST VOTE MAY MEAN THE END OF DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT!

Well, I hate to break the news, but votes are miscounted all of the time."
____________________________________________

Check out F**K the Vote on the web.

Ive got to go now but I'll be back.

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted July 03, 2004 02:30 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Myth: The U.S. is not a democracy.

Fact: The U.S. is a representative democracy in every branch of government.

Summary

The U.S. is a democracy -- just not a direct one. Every branch of our government -- executive, legislative, judicial, monetary -- ultimately derives its power from majority rule or approval. By making our democracy indirect instead of direct, the Founders prevented unrestrained mob rule, allowing a more reasonable pace of majority rule, and greater room for compromise.

Argument

Conservatives continually point out that America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. This is a quibble over definitions, because a constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Democracy comes in two forms: direct and republican. In a direct democracy, the people vote directly on proposed laws, and government (to the extent that it exists) serves only to put their laws into action. By contrast, a republic is a representative democracy, where laws are passed not by the people, but their elected representatives. Adding the term "constitutional" to the word "republic" is frivolous, since all nations have constitutions.

Why, then, do conservatives insist on this distinction? There are two reasons, both of them trivial. One is to embarrass those who make casual use of the term "democracy." Another is that conservatives are so hostile to democracy that they seek to deny its very name.

But a democracy we are. No matter which branch of government you look into, you'll find the fingerprints of democracy everywhere:

Congress: the people vote on their Senators and Representatives, who then vote on their laws.

The White House: the people vote on a slate of electors, who then vote for the president.

Supreme Court: nine justices vote on the constitutionality of laws.

Supreme Court justices: an elected president nominates a Supreme Court justice, who must pass a vote of confidence from the people's elected Senators.

Constitutional amendments: the people's elected representatives vote on the amendments, which must pass by a supermajority of elected state legislatures.

Cabinet appointees: an elected president nominates cabinet officials, who must pass a vote of confidence from the people's elected Senators.

The Federal Reserve: a board of Federal Reserve governors votes on monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve Board: an elected president nominates members to the Federal Reserve Board, who must pass a vote of confidence from the people's elected Senators.

Notice that a spectrum of democracy exists within these examples. On the more direct end lies the House of Representatives, which elects legislators from relatively small districts every two years. On the more republican end lies the Senate, which elects legislators from much larger states every six years. The extreme in republicanism is the Supreme Court, where the people's representatives elect justices to lifetime tenure.

Also notice that there is no such thing as a 100 percent direct democracy, since voters would be overwhelmed with the requirements of voting on the nuts and bolts of every government operation. Inevitably, democracy requires some degree of delegated authority. Still, the Founders feared more direct forms of democracy, since they believed -- with historical justification -- that they increased the volitility of mob rule, reduced the chances of compromise, allowed more uninformed legislation to pass, and were usually short-lived. Thus, they insisted on a more republican form of government. However, they also knew the danger of going too far in the opposite direction. Too republican, and representatives become impervious to the will of the people. The challenge in designing a democracy is to find the right balance between direct democracy and republicanism.

Ultimately, all democracies -- including republics -- operate at the consent of the majority. By making our democracy more indirect than direct, the Founders did not stop majority rule; they merely slowed it down somewhat. We could fine tune our position on this spectrum either way, of course, but we would have to go miles in the direction of republicanism before we were no longer a democracy.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-democracy.htm

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 4782
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 03, 2004 03:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My political science professors would take offense at that. The author doesn't attempt to define a Republic, but he sure makes a point to criticize conservatives. More well-written but twisted verbal chicanery. The founding fathers molded America after the Roman Republic in Italy (which lasted an impressive 2,000 years). We are a democracy only in that our leaders (or most of them) are elected and not appointed--making us in the very least a full and complete Republic, and at the very most a Democratic Republic, but we are not a democracy. We are, in essence, a hybrid of both; however we are miles away from being a democracy, because we take care to preserve minority rights--sometimes giving the minority opinion more power than the majority.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted July 03, 2004 03:29 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah, I agree that the author should have gone into more detail about a Republic and also lightened up a bit on the Conservatives.

He has some good ideas, but his Liberalism seems to cloud his intelligence.

What I did gain from the article was: We are not JUST a Republic. As you said, Randall, we are a combination of the two.

To call the US either a Republic or a Democracy is a lie of sorts that some might be using to push forward their own political agendas and beliefs. Neither is wrong, but neither is FULLY true.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 03, 2004 04:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
LibraSparkle, my authority for saying the United States is a Republic is the Constitution Itself. I don't know who that author is you quote but I'll take the word of Benjamin Franklin and the Constitution itself any day.

Article 4, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm


A Republic If We Can Keep It
by Jerry Patterson

It was a sunny day in Philadelphia in 1787, and the Constitutional convention had just finished its work. A woman, watching the esteemed gentlemen congratulate themselves, approached one of the young nation's leading statesmen, Ben Franklin. "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" she asked. "A Republic, madam," Franklin quickly answered. "If you can keep it."
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/A_Republic.htm


IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a