To Vote or Not to Vote

Home  »  Uncategorized  »  To Vote or Not to Vote
Oct 1, 2014 No Comments ›› blackexaminer

lady in my writer’s group submitted a piece to the members that described her disillusionment with the ugly guerrilla warfare that was passing itself off as the 2012, Barrack Obama – Mitt Romney presidential campaigns. She questioned whether it was worthwhile to vote in the November election. The group initially critiqued her writing style, but spearheaded by some Black members, the focus morphed into a political discussion about the importance of voting.

The consensus was that the right to vote was so precious that every citizen has an obligation to exercise the privilege regardless of the candidate or issue. They vigorously argued that voting rights were especially dear to the Black members who had been denied the franchise for centuries.  Failure to go to the polls on election-day, they believed, negated our struggle for the right to vote. The majority was adamant that she should cast her vote, despite the vitriolic campaign, whether she liked the candidate or not.

While I strongly believe in the power of voting and have voted in nearly every election since becoming eligible to do so, in my opinion the lady’s point was well taken for several significant reasons. With respect to presidential and congressional elections, I am convinced, first and foremost, that key candidacy decisions are made by the global elite with vast influence, leverage and clout to impose their will globally. This contradicts the propaganda that is thoroughly steeped into the American psychic that your vote makes a difference. Early on we were taught that by voting, ordinary citizens control the government. The president and other politicians are supposed to be servants of the people and the government a tool of the general populace. Unfortunately, this concept is a myth.

During the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, the story in circulation was that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton secretly attended the Bilderberg meeting, held for the first time in the United States on June 5, 2007. An article written about the meeting entitled “Obama and Clinton meet, discuss uniting Democrats” is no longer available on the Associated Press website.

The annual invitation only Bilderberg meetings are attended by the most powerful people in finance, business, industry, oil, politics, media, academia and nobility. They modestly describe themselves as a small, informal international forum of people with different viewpoints who meet to enhance mutual understanding.  Although no votes are solicited, resolutions proposed, policy statements issued or whatever is discussed surely has serious global implications.

Despite being in a dead tie for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Clinton dropped out two days after the meeting.  Obama won the nomination, and the rest is history. In 2011, the Bilderberg meeting again convened in Virginia, and Obama was elected to serve a second term. Not coincidently, Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and former head of the European Union Commission Romano Prodi attended Bilderberg meetings before they were elected.

Only the meeting participants know for certain whether they decide who the next U.S. president or foreign leader will be, but the global reach of their incalculable powers cannot be overestimated. This is not to imply that Bilderberg is the global elite’s power base, but it is one of the leading groups within a vast interacting, complex, and highly effective global power network of organizations, clubs, lobbies and groups with common economic, financial, social and geo-political objectives in the Globalist Agenda.

In exchange for the elites’ anointing, the aspiring future heads of state had to promise to adopt their agenda. The candidate’s party was also obliged to conform; thus creating figureheads and puppets. Elections are scams. The illusion is formed to make people believe that they, the people, control the government, not the elite.  The deception serves to neutralize resistance movements. Instead of being an effective means of change, all voting does is strengthen the state and ruling class’ control of society.

Second, I have no faith in the American presidential electoral process. The system is fundamentally unfair to voters because many States award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. This set up can prevent the candidate who receives the majority of votes nationwide from winning the presidential election. In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election to George Bush. Moreover, although the electors pledge to a certain party, federal law does not require them to honor the pledge. On several occasions some have voted contrary to the pledge; giving the electors the power to select as president someone other than the person who won the election.

“The Election of the president should be a fair process where all American voters should have an equal ability to hold their president accountable,” says Richie. “It’s time for the nation to embrace one-person, one-vote elections and the ‘fair fight’ represented by a national popular vote.No more blue, red or purple states. A national popular vote for president will actually reflect the will of the people.

Third, the American two-party system restricts voters to choosing between the lesser of two evils. The only difference between the Republican and Democrat parties lie in the social issues such as abortion, gay rights, middle and upper-class taxation and healthcare. The parties’ platforms are in agreement, however, on issues such as war and interventionism, Wall Street, heavy corporate subsidies, and support for National Security Agency spying. While alternative political parties are certainly permitted to run candidates, the corporate media determines his or her exposure to the voting public. Green Party candidates like Cynthia McKinney or the Tea Party’s Ron Paul are marginalized, and their

The recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision is the biggest blow to an already flawed political structure. That stunning judgment determined that corporations are people and, therefore, have a constitutional freedom of speech right to make unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions to political parties and candidates. That ruling made a mockery of the electoral process because moneyed special interest individuals and groups will, more so than ever, control who and how the nation is governed.

Fourth, I’m troubled by the numerous security flaws in electronic voting machines.  According to researchers, “They’ve found ways to hack the machines to swap votes between candidates, reject ballots or accept 50,000 votes from a precinct with just 100 voters.” It has been documented that the machines are vulnerable to hackers, and election officials cannot verify the vote count because most states don’t use electronic voting machines that generate paper records.

Finally, the news media, the Fourth Estate, is supposed to keep the public informed of the issues. The mass media is now controlled by a small cabal of multinational propaganda machines that disseminate misinformation.

In 2012, the presidential candidates and the news media, as commanded by the elite, framed the economy, jobs in particular, the deficit and taxes as the most important Both contenders solemnly promised to remedy those ills if elected, but neither presented a plan because the economy was broken beyond repair.  That shortcoming was not challenged by the media.

During the final weeks of the 2012 campaign, I visited Erie, Pennsylvania and my hometown, Cleveland, Ohio. Both cities were manufacturing powerhouses in the heart of the industrial Northeast before the owners moved their factories and production overseas en mass. The entire Northeast is now referred to as the rustbelt.

It doesn’t hit home how bad the nation’s industrial sector has declined until you drive past block after block of vacant and abandoned factory buildings and store fronts in both cities.  The housing stock is in deplorable condition, there are no banks or major supermarkets, and even restaurants are far and few between. White unemployment is in the low double-digits while Black unemployment is in the deep depressive 40-50% range… if the truth be told. These once thriving cities have become industrial wastelands and housing ghost towns.

The poignant and undeniable reality is that jobs in the industrial sectors are scarce because American-owned businesses do not manufacture anything anymore. It’s just that simple! The only way either presidential candidate could fulfill his campaign promise to produce jobs, therefore, would be to bring manufacturing back from overseas. Only a fool believes that would happen.

Both candidates promised to substantially reduce the deficit without raising taxes on the middleclass and the wealthy. This is a fiscal impossibility. The country spends far more than the tax revenue it brings in; causing it to borrow enormous amounts of money to cover the revenue shortfall. This gap can’t be closed without astronomically raising taxes and drastically cutting spending.  “Closing the fiscal gap by raising taxes alone,” according to Laurence Kotlikoff of The Fiscal Times, “requires an immediate and permanent 64 percent increase in the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, the FICA payroll tax, the estate and gift tax, and all federal excises taxes.”In addition, the government would have to make “immediate and permanent 40 percent cut”in all other expenditures, including the military budget programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Even if these severe austerity measures were enough to turn around the economy, in my opinion, the American people would take up arms in open revolt if the government tried to implement them.

The deficit is added to the debt each year.  The U.S. Treasury sells bonds to the public to cover the deficit, which the government, in a whooping understatement, stated as $15 trillion in 2011. Foreign nations, international banks and financial institutions purchase the bonds, which are not backed by anything of value. This has been called the greatest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world. The whole thing will collapse in on itself like a house of cards when the U.S. defaults on its debt; and default it most assuredly will. The implosion of the U.S. economy will, in turn, trigger an international financial crisis of epic proportions.

The country is in far worse shape than the politicians and the presidential candidates, in particular, disclosed to the American people. Doing so would have been political suicide. Their strategy was to mislead us with encouraging rhetoric, inane distractions, and a misinformation bombardment while they tried to postpone the inevitable economic meltdown.

Considering the flaws in the presidential election process, it is perfectly rational to be skeptical about the utility of voting.



Leave a Reply

Hit Counter provided by Skylight