THE 2008 ELECTION BRING THE END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT?
By Jon Christian Ryter
February 3, 2008
Baseball uses designated hitters and runners. Politics—at least since 1912—has used its own designated winner and losers. Baseball teams use designated hitters and runners to strengthen the odds that they will win the game. Politics designates the winner and losers for the same reason. Only in politics, the stakes are much higher with the major players coughing up the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to play a few hands in America's greatest past-time. And, that past-time ain't baseball. It's politics. Politics with international implications. And, the stakes have never been bigger than they are this year. At stake is world government. Not just anyone will promise the world's most powerful bankers, industrialists and merchant princes that they are willing to surrender American sovereignty . They must have enough lack of moral character to actually be willing to sell out the people of the United States of America for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow—like Bill and Hillary Clinton did when they signed NAFTA into law, or what George W. Bush did when he signed CAFTA into law. Since the Clintons have already been tested under fire and have been proven willing to surrender America's job base for money and power, Hillary Clinton became the defacto media-ordained front-runner in the 2008 Race for the White House before the race even began. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
Before we look at this season's designated winner and losers, we need to take a minute and look back on how this game started—and who are the invisible "umpires" who referee the game called politics from the sidelines—out of sight of the spectators who actually believed the game is honestly played.
A year before the Election of 1912, New Jersey Gov. Thomas Woodrow Wilson suggested that President William Howard Taft appoint a board of savvy businessmen and bankers led by J.P. Morgan to oversee the financial compass of the nation. Wilson was of the opinion that bankers were more qualified than politicians to steer the US ship-of-State away from the shoals of economic mishap like the Bank Panic of 1907 in which the stock market lost approximately 50% of its value. (The Panic of 1907 was blamed on the crash of the British bank, Baring & Company in Oct., 1906 caused by bad investments by one of its banks, Arbuthnot & Company. The Panic of 1907 was actually a "local" event staged by Morgan in the summer of 1907.) Morgan leaked a story to several of the nation's largest newspapers that the Knickerbocker Bank in New York was insolvent. This started a run not only on the Knickerbocker Bank, but hundreds of other banks, first in New York and then across the nation. The purpose of the rumor-mongering was to do and accomplish precisely what happened. Create a financial catastrophe that Congress would be forced to address. The solution? Create a central banking system to protect the American consumers from insolvent banks.
The plus in the Bank Panic of 1907 was a political opportunist named Woodrow Wilson. Col. Edward Mandall House, one of Morgan's key aides (with family ties to the Rothschild family in Europe), told Morgan that he believed Wilson would make an ideal President because the former Princeton president would be putty in their hands—he would take orders. Morgan liked the idea well enough to send House to feel out the governor and see if Wilson wanted the job bad enough to work with Morgan. Wilson agreed. The first step to the White House was the appointing of Col. House as Wilson's key adviser.
The job of electing Wilson, however, was not going to be that easy. JP Morgan polled the American people several times in 1911-12. The polls suggested Wilson was unelectable. He couldn't pull more than 40% of the vote regardless which Democrat he faced for the nomination. House Speaker Champ Clark was the Democratic favorite that year. Without interference, he would most likely win the nomination.
President William Howard Taft, the polls said, was a shoo-in for reelection regardless who he ran against. Morgan and the money cartel manipulated the election by backing every candidate that year except Eugene V. Debs, the socialist. They secretly funded Wilson's campaign and openly supported both Champ Clark in the primary—and their own third party candidate, popular former president Teddy Roosevelt whom they knew would pull the conservative vote away from Taft and throw the election to Wilson. At least, that's what the honest, in-house polls told them. In the end, Wilson took the 41.8% of the vote the pollsters said he would get. Morgan's third party candidate, Teddy Roosevelt, took 27.4% of the vote, and Taft—who the pollsters in 1911 said would win with 55% of the vote, came in third, taking only 23.2% of the popular vote—and only one State. Roosevelt won 6 states. Wilson, the man who couldn't win, took 41 states. The Money Mafia knew they could always pick the designated winner if they controlled the designated losers.
The Money Mafia had a lot riding on the Election of 1912. First were the successful ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments that would [a] give the federal government the right to impose an income tax on the American people and [b] remove the States from the equation of federal power. (That would prevent the States from killing legislation that would increase the power of the central government—and its ability to surrender the nation's sovereignty to the League of Nations whenever they felt the time was right.) And second was the central bank that was promised to JP Morgan by Wilson if the governor won the White House. Morgan was determined to make sure he did.
More special interest money changed hands in American politics from 1906 to 1912 than it did in any decade in the 20th century until the 1970s when TV became the expensive paid venue for delivering the political message to the voters. Wilson sold out the United States twice during his 8-year reign. First, Congress helped the bankers violate the Constitution by surrendering their right to create the nation's money supply to private bankers. Wilson kept his promise to Morgan and signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 into law on Dec. 23, 1913. On Jan. 18, 1918 in an address to Congress Wilson outlined his 14 Points (which were the cornerstone of the Treaty of Versailles). The 14th point was the foundation of the League of Nations. World government was on track.
When Wilson and House structured the 14 Points, House assured Wilson he would become the first president of the world—providing the League of Nations was ratified by the US Senate before he left office on March 3, 1921. (The Senate had already rejected the Treaty of Versailles in May, 1920 because all signatory nations would be required to surrender sovereignty and submit to the authority and jurisdiction of the League of Nations in Brussels.) Knowing the League of Nations was bad for America, Wilson still took a whistlestop train tour across the nation to sell America's yokels that the League of Nations was a good deal. America never joined the League of Nations, but thanks to FDR, we got suckered into the United Nations.
The plan to create world government began when the Money Mafia realized they could manipulate America's national elections and actually place into office whomever they wanted—with the American people none the wiser. And, since the Election of 1912, the Money Mafia has picked the designated winner and the designated losers of every race except two. In 1964 Lyndon Johnson was not the choice of the money barons who viewed Johnson as a political thug. In 1980 the transnationals picked New Worlder George H.W. Bush, but the media could not convince the American voter that Bush was the frontrunner because the working class—on both sides of the aisle—had already decided they were voting for Ronald Reagan. Reagan set the timeline for world government back 30 years.
To the average American consumer it does not appear logical to believe that a handful of wealthy bankers and industrialists can manipulate the elective process with any degree of certainty since, in the final analysis, it's the voter—many of whom don't even make up their mind until they enter the voting booth—who actually casts their vote for the winner and, by default, the losers.
The field of candidates is manipulated by the media which force feeds the consumer with the standings of the designated winners from both parties—i.e., the frontrunners. You are told they are the frontrunner by virtue of the fact that they have raised more money than then those who are termed second or third tier candidates (i.e., the immediate designated losers) whom you are encouraged not to talk about or vote for since, in media logic, since the big city bankers and transnational industrialists are not filling their pockets with money, they haven't a prayer of winning since we all know it costs millions of dollars to wage a political campaign.
If push comes to shove, and the media has not actually pivoted the "frontrunner" into the lead vote-getter with a sufficient safety margin in the polls, jury-tampering ensues. Jury-tampering—since the voters are the jury that theoretically determines which candidate wins and loses—consists of rigging electronic voting machines to overcount or undercount ballots to guarantee a predetermined outcome.
When the voting machine is a touch-screen computer such as those used in a recent Fox and Friends experiment with a cyberballot, There is no paper trail to prove who voted for which candidate. When you cast your ballot electronically, there is no way to prove which candidate lost the votes or which gained votes not actually cast for them. In both cases, with either the AccVote Optical-Scan machines or the touch-screen computer, the first clue that someone hacked the voting machines comes from the exit polls—just as it did in New Hampshire.
Barack Obama led 41% to 28% in a USA Today-Gallop poll. CNN gave Obama a 39% to 30% edge over the New York Senator. Fox News put the race at 32% to 28% for Obama. Every indicator, including the people who cast the votes, gave the win to Obama. Yet, when the votes were counted, Hillary Clinton won 39.4% to 36.8%. When you examine the Diebold AccVote Optical-Scan voting machine count for the candidates, Hillary took 52.95% of the votes compared to 47.05% for Obama. However, when you examine the paper ballots, Obama took 52.93% of the votes compared to 47.07% for Hillary.
By no stretch of the imagination can you make the argument that Hillary Clinton honestly won a majority of the votes cast in all of the voting precincts where machines were used, and that Obama only won in the districts using paper ballots. Logic suggests that someone was playing loosey-goosey with the voting machine's memory bank and credited the Obama hits to Hillary and visa versa. The Ron Paul Campaign insists that the paper ballots show that John McCain's votes were switched with votes for Dr. Paul since the paper ballots they were allowed to examine in specific precincts were an exact reverse match with the results computed by the AccVote Optical-Scan voting machines.
The Congressman's War Room website shows a Fox & Friends newsclip of an interview with Ed Felton, a Princeton University professor who infected a touch-screen voting machine with a string of computer code that retabulated the the votes cast by taking votes cast for one candidate and giving them to another one. It can be accessed here. The video shows how easily a hacker, who can write code, can reconfigure the votes on a particular touch screen computer if they can access the hard drive of the computer.
Let's stop for a moment and look at the massive warchests of the media-ordained designated winners from both sides and ask ourselves why that is a good thing. For us, it's not. For the American people there are no Democratic candidates that any intelligent, patriotic American can afford to vote for and only two on the Republican side—with neither one of them being designated frontrunner John McCain. McCain, like his Democratic opponents, spends most of his time lying about his record in Congress to conceal the fact that he is every bit as liberal as Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Yet, the media-ordained "designees"—Clinton, McCain and Obama—are touted as the only candidates who can fix the mess in Washington,. In reality, the "mess" was caused by that end of Pennsylvania Avenue since those in the House and Senate are the folks who write the laws demanded as quid pro quos by the constituents who filled their campaign war chests.
The globalists are now completing the structure of a new non-government organization [NGO] known as the Transatlantic Economic Council. An agreement of intent was signed in a White House ceremony in April, 2007 by President George W. Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso of Portugal.
Charged with the responsibility of finalizing the surrender of America's economic sovereignty to the European Union will be a task assigned to the next president. The globalists who are backing Clinton, Obama and McCain—the current designated winner and losers of the Election of 2008. The globalists have pretty much discounted Romney (who is the only GOP candidate standing who can beat Clinton or Obama—regardless what the liberal media says) since the media only mentions his name when they are comparing his status in the polls with frontrunner John McCain—precisely the same ploy the media used by the media in 1980 when they compared Reagan with frontrunner George H.W. Bush. For Part two click below.
here for part -----> 2,
© 2008 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights
[Read "Whatever Happened to America?"]
Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.
Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.
Hopefully, the American people are smart enough to understand what is at stake in the Election of 2008. What is at stake is the United States of America as we know it.