I recently posted a controversial statement from an anonymous source. First off, I want to make it clear to readers that the covert agent piece was the first anonymous source I have ever worked with. I was aware of the fact that I would be attacked for putting up the piece. It was a difficult decision and I went with it on the belief that the content of the message would out weigh the controversial source. The message was given to me because much of what was said touched on research that I had done in a previous version of my book.
Some people feel strongly that the message was from a legitimate inside source, while others think that it was just from a well-informed political observer trying to get attention on the important issues mentioned and the seven action items. I’ll leave the debate over the source of the message to others. In the end though, I posted the piece because I felt the overall power of the message was too strong to be ignored and just filed away. I feel as if I made the right decision, because the message has inspired passionate response from many people. With very minimal outreach effort, I have already received over five thousand emails regarding the piece.
This part of the message, in particular, has received much attention:
“I firmly believe Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense and Bush Sr.’s right-hand man in the covert world, used computer cryptography and software security assets to get Bush Jr. elected both times. I do not have direct knowledge of the operation, but research ‘Robert Gates,’ ‘Bill Owens,’ ‘electronic voting security,’ ‘HAVA,’ ‘VoteHere’ and ‘Scientific Applications International Corp.’ The operation went so well that Gates was going to be made the first ever Director of National Intelligence. He turned down the job, but then took the Secretary of Defense position when Rumsfeld was removed from his public position. I don’t think there will ever be solid evidence linking directly to members of the administration; it’s all a tangled web of plausible deniability. But I do think it will eventually be proven that the elections were manipulated to deliver Bush the victory. Many people in the covert world take this for granted, as common sense.”
The statement above, in conjunction with research I’ve done for my book, led me to some extraordinarily interesting insights that still need to be investigated further. I will present everything I know at this point and hope that you, and everyone that reads this, will help launch an investigation into this vital matter. Some of what I present here will already be known to election theft researchers, however, as far as I can tell, it has not all been pieced together in one concise document like this. Like I said though, if you have more information, please share it.
Before I get into Robert Gates and Bill Owens’ role in this, let me give some background information on the electronic voting machine industry and manipulation of past elections.
Private Control of the US Voting System:
“In the seventeen years I’ve been an election administrator; my experience is that… the American electoral system is rotten and we need to deal with that…. We are hostage to the desires of private interests to conduct the most public of our procedures, public elections…. You could steal the election and no one would ever know.” — Ion Sancho, Supervisor of Florida recount in the 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential race.
If voting is the foundation of democracy, why have we turned over our elections to private corporations? Over 87% of the US vote is counted on voting machines provided by three private corporations: Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia.
Some facts about the US Electronic Voting System:
It has been demonstrated that voting machines can be hacked into within 10 seconds – without any traceable evidence.
The memory cards that store the vote totals have been found to have executable codes on them. These codes allow the memory card vote totals to be altered – without any traceable evidence.
The central tabulator system, which adds up all the vote totals to give final results, can easily be hacked into and totals can be altered within a few minutes – without any traceable evidence.
These voting machines have consistently caused major vote-counting “irregularities.” It has been proven time and time again that these machines give unreliable vote counts. The Election Science Institute reported that 75% of the machines that they examined had inaccurate vote totals.
Key findings from the report:
“The machines’ four sources of vote totals… did not agree with one another. The current election system appears to provide some of its promised benefits at potentially great cost; namely, that the election system, in its entirety, exhibits shortcomings with extremely serious consequences…. These shortcomings merit urgent attention. Relying on this system in its present state should be viewed as a… heightened risk of unacceptable cost.”