Monday, February 08, 2016

What Happens in Iowa, Stays in Iowa!

Iowa Election Manipulation
We are quickly approaching times when the elections are going to be decided by the power of marketing software and the size and correctness of databases with political profiles of prospective voters
By  Mark Andrew Dwyer -- Bio and Archives 
February 7, 2016
If you lived in Soviet Union and tried to run for the Supreme Soviet (an elective body with powers similar to those of the U.S. Congress) with a political program different from the one advertised by the Soviet ruling clique, you would have everybody against you: the establishment, the press (and its propaganda), the political organizations, and for obvious reasons. But suppose you managed to politically survive until elections, and all your name ended up on the ballot. Obviously, you would lose, badly, on election day. But it would take extreme naivetĂ© to conclude that the citizens of the Soviet Union rejected you and your program. The Soviet “elections” system was controlled by the ruling clique to assure the continuity of their monopoly on power.
No one at his right mind in free world lent any credibility to Soviet “elections” that were often the subject of ridicule and jokes. But how about the system that we have in the U.S.? Are the results of elections here a true expression of the will of the People? Or are they - at least in part - the result of fraud, voter deception, and other manipulations of that sort? Our election system used to enjoy a public trust, but with election fraud becoming more and more rampant and the tools of persuasion becoming more and more effective, the presumption of fairness of election results is fading quickly.
Why should we assume that the election process, the most details of which are unknown to most of the People, controlled by often shady groups and individuals, is not tainted? If the process was sound and unbiased, we would not have those cases of stuffing of the ballot boxes, recounts that always favor one political wing, dead people voting, homeless being dragged to the voting polls, just to name a few? And why pre-election polls are often so dramatically different from the elections results? Which of those, if any, is a more accurate measurement of the will of the People?
If the system is so good then why is it so bad?
There is something definitely fishy with Iowa recent election results. It appears that they were caused by orchestrated manipulation and were not indicative of the level of support that Trump, Cruz, and Rubio actually enjoyed. There is no good reason to believe that those results were a manifestation of the Iowa electorate, and that the numerous polls showing Trump well ahead of his competitors were wrong.
A conclusion that Trump came second because of his narrower base than Cruz’s base would require an assumption that those who voted in the Republican primary in Iowa constituted a fair (unbiased) sample of all registered GOP voters in that state. Although such a fairness is theoretically possible, based what is publicly known, it is a highly unlikely scenario.
The most likely scenario is over-representation of Cruz voters and Rubio voters in the Iowa Republican election paired with persuading a large number of undecided voters to vote on those two. Marketing giants (let them remain nameless here) didn’t even try to hide that they made the most advanced marketing software available to their preferred candidates, and we have seen the results of the successful political marketing of Cruz and Rubio last Monday. However legal it might be at this moment, is a clear case of free election manipulation that produce winners who do not have support of the plurality of (Republican, in this case) voters. And the fact that the result of Iowa Caucus were so dramatically different than the results of most of the polls in recent weeks should be enough to doubt in actual (as opposed to nominal) fairness of the election.
The likelihood that the above scenario was the one that took place in Iowa and that it changed substantially the results of the election is further increased by the fact that the turnout among Iowa Republican voters was unusually high. It strongly suggests that the following three actions took place:
1.The participation of Rubio voters was increased with profiling software that allowed his campaign to reliably target his supporters and shower them with calls to go out and vote. It is a particularly likely scenario under the circumstances of mega-donors’ large contributions to Rubio in order to eliminate Trump for competition.
2.A similar scenario, although with slightly lesser probability, applies to Cruz.
3.But the most likely source of Cruz and Rubio was the precise identification of undecided but persuadable voters and contacting them directly to vote for either of the above two. This kind of manipulation is the core strategy in advanced marketing today, and its effectiveness is nothing short of marvelous.
Add to all the above 24/7 anti-Trump campaign of virtually all “mainstream” media and you will see how it could happen that indisputable front-runner Trump ended up with roughly the same number of votes as Cruz and Rubio did.
We are quickly approaching times when the elections are going to be decided by the power of marketing software and the size and correctness of databases with political profiles of prospective voters. Those candidates who have better software and data will likely defeat those who don’t, regardless of who they are and what they stand for. And our repeated requests to give us the government that follows the will of the American People in its policies and actions are going to end up in a dustbin of history.
Mr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer. Mark Andrew Dwyer’s commentaries (updated frequently) can be found here. Send your comments to
George and Barbara not enough to save Jeb’s campaign
This response is in keeping with Bush’s political correctness and his moderate political philosophy, regardless of his claims to be a conservative
By  Jeff Crouere -- Bio and Archives
February 6, 2016
The results from Iowa were certainly interesting. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders virtually tied, giving both campaigns some momentum going into New Hampshire. Whereas, the laughable, struggling Martin O’Malley finally decided to end his ridiculous campaign after getting less than 1% of the vote in Iowa.
Also, on the Republican side, ending campaigns were Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who hoped to recapture the magic of 2008 and pull off a miracle upset in Iowa. It did not happen for Huckabee, Santorum or Paul and at least they had the good sense to quit. The same can’t be said for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who finished a pathetic sixth place among Republican voters, yet vowed to continue the fight in New Hampshire and beyond.
Bush’s anemic level of support was the best result of the Iowa election. It places his campaign on life support going to New Hampshire and makes his nomination very unlikely. Of course, this is all bad news for the Democrats who were looking to coast to victory in November if the Republicans nominated another Bush.
With the top three Republican candidates in Iowa being Cruz, Trump and Rubio, voters sent an unmistakable message to the GOP establishment that it is time for new leadership. It is also the only possible way for Republicans to have a chance of recapturing the White House in November.
How times have changed! Last year, Bush was the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. He is part of the Bush dynasty as his father and brother served as President, so he had a tremendous built-in advantage. He enjoyed easy access to the wealthy, establishment donors who control the Republican Party. These power brokers flooded his campaign with massive donations, allowing Bush to establish the early lead in the polls and in the important category of fundraising.
It soon evaporated as Bush tangled with Donald Trump in the debates and was labeled both stiff and “low energy.” Throughout his campaign, Bush has failed to connect with Republican voters looking for action on the important issues of the economy, illegal immigration and the fight against ISIS.
The end result was his uninspiring performance in Iowa, where he finished in sixth place with only 2.8% of the vote. In fact, Bush wasted almost $15 million in Iowa to garner just 5,165 votes, spending as astronomical $2,884 per Iowa vote.
His horrible showing reflects the desire of Republican voters to move past the Bush family and find new leadership in the party. Voters must realize that Jeb Bush is a creature of the much despised Republican establishment and, if elected, would not do anything to deal with the real crisis facing our nation today.
Despite the Iowa setback, the Bush campaign is making a final push in New Hampshire, and, especially, in South Carolina. Barbara Bush, Jeb’s mother, who previously was not thrilled about another one of her sons running for President, campaigned for Jeb in New Hampshire this week. She said Jeb was the “nicest, wisest, most caring, loyal, disciplined” candidate in the race. Of course, she acted like any supportive mother and praised her son, but it remains to be seen whether these words of affection will translate into votes for Jeb.
In South Carolina Right to Rise, a Super PAC supporting Jeb, started airing commercials featuring his brother, former President George W. Bush. The commercial concludes with George W. Bush saying, “Experience and judgment count in the Oval Office. Jeb Bush is a leader who will keep our country safe.”
With both his mother and brother now fully on board and engaged, Jeb Bush is literally putting all of this political cards on the table. This is his final shot to make a move in the race. While the national polls continue to show Bush in the middle of the pack, the in-fighting among the top three candidates, Trump, Cruz and Rubio, may provide an opportunity for Bush to gain ground in the days ahead.
The dilemma of his candidacy is that he is not the type of conservative, reform oriented, leader the GOP or the country needs after eight years of Obama. It is time for a political revolution with courageous leadership, but Jeb Bush is too much of an establishment politician. For example, this week, Bush praised the President’s visit to the Baltimore mosque, claiming that it was “more than appropriate.” Of course, the difficulty with the visit is that the former imam of the mosque was a member of an Islamic organization tied to terrorism. He also worked for a relief organization that had radical associations. Other presidential candidates blasted Obama’s visit, but Bush refused to utter a negative word.
This response is in keeping with Bush’s political correctness and his moderate political philosophy, regardless of his claims to be a conservative. In these troubled times, what America needs is a strong conservative who will courageously move our country in a new direction. Electing Bush will basically mean more of the same and that, in a nutshell, is the problem with his candidacy.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA.  He is the host of a Louisiana-based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Friday, and 10:00 p.m. Sunday on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station; and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. For more information, visit his web site at E-mail him at
Ted Cruz Wins Iowa - What It Means
By Chuck Baldwin
February 4, 2016
A Ted Cruz victory in Iowa was not surprising. Not at all. Typically, the Republican presidential candidate that can "Out Christian" the rest of the field wins in Iowa. And Cruz is the best at doing that since G.W. Bush that I’ve seen. But unlike Bush, Cruz will NOT be the Republican nominee. Count on it. And I, for one, am glad he won’t be.
The Cruz victory has got to be seen as a slap in the face for Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr., who personally campaigned in Iowa for Donald Trump. As much as I like Jerry, Jr., he is not his dad and will never be able to galvanize Christian conservatives like Jerry, Sr., did. The once powerful Religious Right passed with Jerry Falwell, Sr.
Faithful readers of this column know that I have already expressed my feelings that Cruz cannot be trusted to be faithful to the Constitution--especially in matters that pertain to the Warfare State and the Police State. His ties to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Goldman Sachs cannot be taken lightly. Birds of a feather still flock together. His staff is littered with New World Order fellow travelers. You are reading one Christian writer who would FAR rather vote for an unbeliever that will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than vote for a believer who will NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And there is nothing about Ted Cruz that convinces me he would be faithful to the Constitution--his Christian rhetoric notwithstanding.
Plus, of all of the GOP presidential candidates, Ted Cruz is probably the deepest in the pocket of the Israeli lobby--not that the rest of them aren't also. However, I still maintain that Rand Paul is the LEAST obligated to the Israeli lobby of all of them. (Rand Paul also demonstrates more fidelity to the Constitution than the rest of the field put together. And now that Rand has pulled out of the race, there really isn’t a constitutionally literate contender left.) Unlike many of my Christian brethren, I am convinced that the Zionists in Israel and America are a major destructive force to liberty and a direct threat to the Biblical, Natural Law principles upon which the United States was founded. The more allegiance a U.S. politician has to Zionism, the more harmful he or she is to America. Put Ted Cruz at the top of the list.
Obviously, this primary season has just begun, and an Iowa victory portends very little for things to come. This could wind up being a very interesting and unusual election season. Let your mind ruminate over some of these possible scenarios:
1. The GOP has a brokered convention, and establishment insiders pick Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.
This is a distinct possibility. The establishment is going all out to defeat Donald Trump, but his momentum is significant. It is very feasible that no candidate will have mustered the necessary delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. If that happens, you can be sure that the establishment knows how to manipulate the convention to ensure that an insider wins. The two candidates who fit that bill the best are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Rush Limbaugh is revealing his establishment loyalties by saying (with a straight face even) that Rubio is NOT an establishment candidate. But he is.
If this scenario becomes reality, a host of the Trump/Cruz/Carson/Paul supporters would abandon the GOP in November like rats off of the proverbial sinking ship. Then again, the GOP establishment would rather burn the house down than let a principled conservative win, as they are much more closely aligned with liberal Democrats than they are conservative Republicans.
2. Donald Trump sees the GOP establishment rigging primaries to defeat him and decides to run as an Independent.
I realize Trump signed a pledge that he would not bolt the GOP, but everyone knows that Trump is still holding that ace up his sleeve. Of course, many people know that Trump has had a long-standing personal friendship with the Clintons, and they fear he is playing the system to ensure a Hillary victory. That’s speculation, of course. But given that Trump talks and acts “from the hip” (assuming he is NOT a Hillary mole), his loyalty to his pledge will surely be tested, as the GOP establishment will do everything it can do to stack the deck against him. As the primaries (and passions) heat up, Trump is indeed the loose cannon in the field that could do just about anything--including jumping ship and running as an Independent.
3. Hillary is indicted or begins losing significantly to Bernie Sanders, and Democrats scramble to bring another insider (like Joe Biden) into the race.
Officials in Iowa are saying Hillary defeated party rival Bernie Sanders by the skin of her teeth. Plus, everyone is aware that some of those local victories were determined by coin tosses. The Democratic machine gave Hillary the win in Iowa and everyone knows it.
The Clinton camp has got to be worried after the embarrassing “victory” in Iowa. Sanders’ support is growing, while Clinton’s support is waning. The party machine is going to have to work around the clock to keep her afloat. But if Sanders begins to pull away from Hillary, her establishment buddies will turn on her like a pack of wolves on a bleeding lobo. Indictments are still hanging out there, and if it becomes obvious that Hillary isn’t winning primaries by landslide margins, watch the insiders throw her to the wolves and enlist another insider such as Joe Biden. Such an event would upset the applecart BIG TIME. And don’t forget that the former Democratic senator from Virginia and true war hero who served in the Reagan cabinet, Jim Webb, is waiting in the wings for just the right opportunity to enter the race. Wow! The possibilities are almost endless.
Obviously, Bernie Sanders is to the Democrats what Donald Trump is to the Republicans: a major thorn in the side.
4. Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg enters the race as an Independent--bringing with him $1 billion to spend. Or, Democrats tap Bloomberg if they abandon Clinton.
Bloomberg is another loose cannon that could shake things up this year. No doubt about that. But a billion dollars or no billion dollars, Bloomberg is mostly a one-string banjo. The only thing he is passionate about is disarming the American people. And while Clinton and Sanders might be just as bad on the Second Amendment, Bloomberg’s fanaticism on the issue would drive away virtually all of the gun owners in the country--including Democrats and Independents. The fact is, the mood of the country is more favorable toward the Second Amendment now than at any time in recent memory, which is why the Democratic Party will probably ignore Bloomberg.
But two independent billionaires in the general election (if it came to that)--one an ultra-liberal and the other a tough-talking “conservative”--would definitely shake things up. No doubt about it. Imagine (we are just ruminating here) a four-man race that includes the two major party candidates and two independent billionaires. And if it does become a four-man race between the above-mentioned people, can you imagine what would happen if Ron Paul suddenly decided to jump back in the race? Ron is still as sharp as a tack and more fit than many men half his age.
The last time anything remotely resembling the above happened was in 1860. And you know what happened the year after that.
And personally, I see regional separation (no, it would not have to be bloody--and I highly doubt that it would be) as a good thing, not as a bad thing. In fact, I think it is inevitable. It’s not a matter of “if.” It’s only a matter of “when.” But I digress.
Suffice it to say, folks, this is shaping up to be the most unusual and unpredictable election season in my lifetime--maybe since that election back in 1860. Hold on!
P.S. Recent events have graphically illustrated the need for the American citizenry to have an educated and informed understanding of the laws and protocols--as well as our rights and duties--when placed in contact with police officers. Sadly, most Americans are totally unprepared to deal with even “routine” traffic stops. Violent interactions between police officers and citizens are escalating. Sometimes the blame lies with law enforcement, and sometimes the blame lies with the citizen. Knowing how to respond to a police contact has never been more important.
My attorney son (a former prosecutor and now defense attorney) recently delivered an address to the folks at Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana, entitled “Police Contact: How To Respond.” I believe EVERY citizen in the country needs to watch this video. It might even save some lives. I encourage readers to order at least two: one for themselves and one for a friend.
To order the video presentation, “Police Contact: How To Respond,” go to:
Related Articles:
© 2016 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 9 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck's complete bio here.
Voting Machines and the Growth of Tyranny
Bollyn, Christopher
January 13, 2013
Yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson, “Preamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge,” 1778
In the immediate aftermath of the presidential election of 2012 citizens from all fifty states filed petitions to secede from the United States of America. This is a clear sign that many Americans think the federal government has become a tyranny. The word tyranny comes from the Greek word tyrant, which the ancient Greeks bestowed on good and bad rulers alike if their authority was not legitimate.  A tyrant is a person who has seized or assumed power wrongfully, as George W. Bush did in 2000. In this sense the words tyrant and usurper are exact synonyms.
The state petitions of secession, signed by more than 675,000 people in the days after the election, are indicative of the growing awareness among Americans that their government is not legitimate. What that means to all Americans and how we can rectify the problem and restore the integrity to our American republic is the purpose of this essay.
Once every two years Americans go to the polls to determine who will represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives, and for president once every four years. If the representation is to be real, the election must also be real, as Thomas Paine wrote in 1803. The fundamental problem with the U.S. government today is that it simply does not represent the American people because our elections are not real.
The presidential election of November 6, 2012, was as flawed as all U.S. elections have been since the citizenry was removed from the vote-counting process.   There were more than 70,000 complaints received on Election Day 2012. These complaints concerned vote fraud and problems with the electronic voting systems. There were, however, no formal complaints coming from the Romney camp, which is very odd.
Since the election, Romney’s son Tagg has come out saying that his father did not even want to be president, which suggests that Romney was only running because he was being paid to fill the space for the Republican candidate. This is the same tactic that was used to elect the unknown Obama to the U.S. Senate in 2004. After the Republican candidate withdrew due to a sex scandal, there was no candidate opposing Obama until Alan Keyes of Maryland was drafted by the GOP of Illinois, 86 days before the election. The fact that Keyes did not even live in Illinois did not bother anyone because Keyes was only running to fill the space and make it looklike a race. It now looks like Romney was doing the same thing to enable Obama to win re-election.
“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life,” Tagg Romney told the Boston Globe. “If he could have found someone else to take his place... he would have been ecstatic to step aside.”
There was someone, however, who could have taken Romney’s place and who would have beaten Obama in the polls: Rep. Ron Paul. While Dr. Paul was very popular with the people across the nation, his anti-war positions and strict obedience to the U.S. Constitution are utterly anathema to the crimocracy that rules Washington, so they had to find a way to derail the Ron Paul Express to the White House. (Crimocracy is my word for the criminalochlocracy or “mob rule” that dominates our government.
To have the representation real, the election must be real;
and that where the election is a fiction,
the representation is a fiction also. 
Like will always produce like.
- Thomas Paine to the Citizens of the United States, January 29, 1803
The most fundamental problem with elections in the United States is that the tallying of the votes is done in secret by the private companies who run the electronic voting systems used across the country. These voting systems were designed to remove the citizen from the vote counting and authentication process and have made a complete sham of our elections and our democratic franchise.
Elections in the United States have become a grand deception in which the ruling powers and controlled media deceive the people into thinking that they actually choose the people who represent them. It is, however, not the American people who choose their leaders but the people who run the voting systems that count the votes and produce the tallies. In this way the U.S. government has become tyrannical because it is not legitimate and does not represent the American people.     
In free governments, the rulers are the servants
and the people their superiors and sovereigns. - Benjamin Franklin
The most revolutionary aspect of our American system of government is that it is based on the concept of popular sovereignty, which means that the legitimacy of our government and law is based on the consent of the governed.   The American Revolution replaced the sovereignty of King George III with a collective sovereign – the popular sovereignty of the American people.
Americans give their consent when they exercise their democratic franchise by voting for their representatives every two years. As long as our votes are being counted in secret, however, by the privately owned companies that run our elections, our democratic franchise is meaningless.
If we are not counting our votes in our local polling stations we are not enfranchised in our government.   It’s that simple - and that serious. We are not actually participating in our government, which means that our social contract no longer exists.
The American concept of popular sovereignty was articulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a citizen of Geneva, who wrote in The Social Contract (1762) about the tendency of governments to degenerate into tyrannies:
The dissolution of the state can occur in one of two ways. First, when the ruling body no longer administers the state in accordance with the laws, and usurps sovereign authority. The change that then takes place deserves notice: it is that the state, not the government, contracts in size; I mean that the greater state is dissolved, and that within it another is created, consisting only of the members of the government, which in relation to the rest of the people is no more than its master and tyrant. So that, as soon as the government usurps sovereignty, the social pact is broken; and every ordinary citizen, restored by right to his natural liberty, is forced, but not obliged, to obey. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762
This is evidently what has happened in the United States. Like ancient Athens, Americans are now living in a period in which they are ruled by tyrants. In the final analysis there is only one way to restore legitimate government in the United States: to return to democratic and transparent elections in which the citizens openly count the votes in every polling station across the nation.
The Constitution, after all, gives the legislatures of the individual states the power to decide how elections should be held in each state. Rather than secede from the union, the citizens in each state should turn their energies to demanding that their state pass legislation that bans voting machines entirely and restores the integrity to their elections by using paper ballots counted by the citizens in every polling place in the state.
It won’t be easy and there will be strong resistance to these efforts but this is what has to be done. There are many nations that could serve as models to help Americans restore democratic elections to their different states. The Swiss, for example, provide an excellent model and vote several times a year because they have a system of direct democracy in which the citizens are required to vote on legislation. This is probably due to the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who said that the sovereign citizen could not be represented by anyone else. The Swiss, in fact, have a constitution that is based on the U.S. Constitution. The biggest difference between the Swiss and the American systems today is that the Swiss have not compromised their popular sovereignty and allowed private companies to count their votes. In Switzerland the votes are still cast using paper ballots that are counted by hand.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
- Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Reality of Electronic Vote Fraud in America," January 26, 2012
The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Christopher Betts (trans.), Oxford University Press, 1994