A message of truth to Sibel Edmonds

A message of truth to Sibel Edmonds on 3rd Party Voting:  Lesser of Two Evils or Wasted Vote?

by Jere L Hough

Sibel Edmonds is one of my heroes.  She is a whistleblower and a truth-teller.  I honor her as I would someone who gives all, even life itself, in support of eternal values such as truth, goodness and beauty.  I hold her and all who honor truth in the same high esteem that many hold Mother Theresa, right up there with the saints and heroes of history.

Sibel asked a question about voting for 3rd or 4th party candidates in America, and whether of not voting for someone who might only get a small percentage of the vote was the right thing to do.   She feels that it is not correct to vote for “the lesser of two evils” when both major party candidates are bad, or do not represent her positions.

I can relate.  I can sympathize.  I understand the rationale.  But I do not agree.

I have heard this issue argued so many times, and have addressed it so many times, that I will now post it on my blog site, so I don’t have to keep going over and over this same ground for the few years that I may have remaining here, should that be God’s will.  I am in my seventies, and have long endured chronic health problems.  I wish to pass on what little light I have attained without undue repetition.  I hope some people read it, and comment, or give their thoughts on the subject.

The answer Sibel leans to is to vote for the best candidate regardless of the situation or the field or the parties or the percentages.  She praised one answer that said something to the effect that ‘as long as one votes for the best possible candidate nobody can fault that choice’, regardless of whether the person voted for can win or not.  She seems to thing that kind of clear moral conviction is right.  Even ‘writing in’ the best candidate is the ‘right thing to do’ according to this line of reasoning.

I’ve heard so many good people make the same argument.  On first glance it seems faultless.  Who could criticize one’s casting a vote for the “best candidate”?  But let us look more closely.  Is voting for the best possible candidate regardless of chance of winning the best policy?  Of course not.  In most cases it is a totally wasted vote.  Here is why:

It ignores the consequences, or outcomes, of your choice.

It ignores the practical reality.  It ignores circumstances or the situation at hand.  The importance of an election is all about the outcome, the results.  It’s not about YOU or YOUR conscience, or smugly leaving the voting booth thinking that at least you didn’t vote for “the lesser of two evils”.  It’s about the consequences of you vote, and that depends of the wisdom of your choice in any given situation in evaluating outcomes.    Quite often that means making sure the worst possible choice  – the one who could do the most harm – is defeated, and kept out of power.

If one really believed that voting for the best person no matter what, then one should write in a vote for Jesus in every election, or Buddha, or Mohammed, or JFK, or Lincoln, or Jefferson.  Would that not be true?  Or taking someone alive, one might write in (name your favorite living hero here) _______ .

So what happens when Gandhi is running against Hitler and you cast your vote for Jesus?  You did the right thing, didn’t you?  Now suppose Hitler wins by one vote.  Is it still the right thing?  I think not.

Now let’s turn it around a bit, and say our choices are between Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy, among the likes of Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Lew Rockwell, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and Cynthia McKinney.  Throw in other minority party perennials of your choice.  It doesn’t matter.  Throw in Jesus, Ronald McDonald, Buddha, Alexander the Great.  It doesn’t matter.

Polls give us fairly reliable information, and tell us Kennedy and Reagan are neck and neck with about 90% of the votes between them, and the rest of the pack is splitting the remaining 10%.  These are the FACTS on the ground.  This is the reality.  What are your choices, and the possible outcomes?

Here is what it comes down to.  Regardless of whether you consider Reagan and Kennedy the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, your only responsible choice, once you have done everything else you can do to advocate your ideal choice, is to vote for the best candidate of the two that can win, even if it is, in your opinion, ‘the lesser of two evils’.    Remember, “the choice between the lesser of two evils is still the best choice.  Voting for one that will do the least harm is the same as voting for the greatest good.  The glass is either half empty or half full.

That’s it.  Only if you are just absolutely convinced that there would be no difference at all between Kennedy and Reagan should you vote for one who can’t win.

Now I’m going to make a statement that will sound harsh to some.  Nonetheless it is absolutely true.  People who make the claim that there is no difference between the two major US parties do so for one of three possible reasons, and I am aware of no exceptions.  1) They are of sub-normal intelligence and lack reasoning ability;  2)  – They are ignorant of the facts that determine differences in platforms and positions; or 3)  They are lying, or being deceptive, and following some agenda for doing so.  What might seem like a fourth case, having been deceived by others, or self-deceived, is really just a special instance of #2, ignorance.

So there you have it.  Stupidity, Ignorance, and Deception.  The three great evils of our time are destroying our democratic republic, just as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and other Founding Fathers predicted it would without countermeasures.

It’s like being on a jury, hearing all the evidence for and against guilt, and then deciding you don’t like either side, and you’d rather not choose!  Hung jury.  Mistrial.  All the public money, time, effort, investigations, you time, everything has all gone to waste.  The defendant must sit longer in jail or go free.  This is an ultimate abdication of civic responsibility.  I see no difference between the jury situation and that of refusing to cast your vote for the best party or candidate that has a chance to win, assuming you have done your homework and investigated the issues and the party’s or candidate’s positions on those issues.  Only if that is not the case would I condone throwing away one’s vote on a hopeless choice – one that cannot win, and only play the part of the spoiler.

What advice did Jesus give?  Among other things, He said “be as gentle as doves, but as wise as serpents”.   Wise means being aware of the consequences of choices and actions, among other things.  Wise means knowledge that has been lived into experience!  Wise means being able to choose rightly between two difficult courses of action.  Jesus said for us to be wise!

It all comes down to evaluating the logical and practical consequences of your actions, and making the wisest choice.   That is nearly always the choice that will have the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest period of time.   That’s the easy part to figure out.  The hard part is to figure out what that choice is.  The hard part is to learn all that one can about the issue, the facts, and how various choices will impact one’s life in the most desirable ways – the ways that do the ‘greatest good for the largest number over the longest time’.  That’s the hard part.  That’s the part that so few of us have the time and energy to do right, to do thoroughly.  That’s the way ignorance play into the hands of the enemies of progress, prosperity and peace.

Ignorance is the way the bad guys control the good guys.  Ignorance is the way the masters keep their slaves.  Ignorance is the way evil appears to, at least temporarily, triumph over good.  Keeping people ignorant is the primary occupation of those who wield temporal power in today’s materialistic world.

The mainstream media is the major instrument of ignorance, the tool used by those in control of major world events.  Education is another.  But the main tool of evil is money.  Money and banking is the ‘one ring that binds them all’, and it is the ring of invisibility.  The real money powers are invisible, out of sight, behind the curtain.  Money buys and sells all 3 of the major branches of government.  Money controls politics.  Money is the basic and un-discussed element in economics.  Money is “The Matrix”.  Money is the ‘yellow brick road’.  Oz is the abbreviation for an ounce of gold.  Dorothy’s slippers were silver, not ruby, in Frank Baum’s allegory about the money powers.

Sibel has posted much criticism about the flip-flops and campaign promise reversals of Barack Obama.  She is correct that many things have not yet been corrected, or changed.  But what I believe she has wrong is the degree of the blame she assigns to Obama personally, rather than the situation, or reality, that he inherited when he came into office.

One responder to Sibel’s blog wrote:

Sibel, at this point, anyone who doesnt understand they have been hoodwinked is just hopeless. Although second guessing motive is probably less important I wonder if you have any insight or knowledge of just WHY this is happening. Was Obama an insider from the start who BS’d his way through an election endearing himself to those who truly hoped for change or is he a good guy who has been compromised. As I noted previously, I hate feeling cynical but at this point I find it impossible to believe that there is NOT a very large conspiracy going on, the magnitude of which makes it almost impossible for the average rational mind to comprehend. I think J. Edgar Hoover said something to this degree in the past….that even men of power and business in this country would not dare to speak of it.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.”

And this is the key.  I could add hundreds of similar quotes from people whose credibility is impeccable.  Woodrow Wilson, FD Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Lincoln, Bismark, Jackson, Jefferson, and numerous others.   Anyone who comes into to high national office soon realizes that there is a Matrix of Money Power that works invisibly to the average citizen, and that they are nearly powerless to change it without committing suicide, literally or politically.

My personal conviction is that Obama is taking heroic risks promoting the changes he has, since taking office.  But too many people think he could just sprinkle fairy dust around, and everything would instantly be lovely again.   Who has been “hoodwinked”, the people, or Obama?  That is the real question.

But back to voting and examining the consequences of our actions.   If it is your position that both major parties are corrupt, and the system is in need of change, then address the corruption and the systemic changesWork to make a difference.  Work to change the system.  Work for the reforms you think are needed.  Knock on doors.  Get out the bullhorns.  Write your emails, and congresspersons.  Do what you can do.  Strike, sit-in, teach-in, call-in, boycott, have neighborhood meetings, write and sign petitions, do all that you can to make progressive changes.

But when you get into the booth, vote for the best choice among those who can win.

Our system IS broken.  It needs to be fixed or replaced at the level and root cause of the problem.

My suggestion is to begin learning how the system is broken, and why.  Learn who broke it, and why.  Learn by studying the un-sanitized histories of money, banking, economics, government, political parties and systems, and the relationships between them.  This is no small task.  I have made it a lifetime avocation.

I can help direct honestly motivated people in their search for truth.  That is why I am writing this for Sibel Edmonds, and to all those who are honestly asking similar questions.

It is extremely hard in today’s confused and disordered world for any one person to know all they need to know to make the best voting decisions.  That does not relieve one from making a good effort to do so.  If you don’t have time to research the issues, then find someone you trust who has, and get their advice.  Then do that several times, and weigh what you have learned.

Then make the best choice, based on the outcomes or results.

One subtle way to get people to vote against the opposition party, or against the best “electable candidate” is to convince people that there is no difference between the two parties or candidates.  This is often an effective strategy, especially when the party in power has been exposed as fraudulent, or even criminal, as was the case in the 2009 election.  The “no difference” mantra was pumped out by the media with vigor and massive funding in 2009.  From my own personal observations I can say that many if not most of those who paint both parties as corrupt are those usually vote for the discredited party, or voted for the unpopular president.  If you are the traditional “laissez faire deregulation” Republican, and those policies are being widely held as prime reasons for economic collapse, you are hardly going to embrace regulation and oversight, and the opposing philosophy.  So you will maintain the parties are equally bad.  It lets you off the conscience hook without voting for the opposition.   It has been demonstrated that the guys you have always supported are criminals and torturers, but you cannot accept the other philosophy.  So they are both equally bad.  Yes.  That’s the ticket.  They are both equally evil.  Can’t vote for either major party now, so we have to convince everyone to throw away theri vote on soneone who can’s win.  I’m not saying that is every case, but something close to it accounts for much of this recent attitude.

See Case Histories below for some real life examples of how election outcomes have been manipulated by the money powers, or “dark forces” that are operating from behind the scenes.

A couple of important caveats on what is said above.  I am advising as I do only given the exact conditions that now exist in 2009 in the USA.  That is important, as there are voting and elections systems that could and should be devised that would change the above conclusions.

Automated run-off balloting would affect the conclusions here, if the system was a good one.  That means running off (recounting the ballots, eliminating the lowest vote getter) as many times as needed to get a clear majority to determine a winner.

It also means shared representation instead of our current winner-take-all representation.  A party or person that gets 10% of the vote in a congressional election should get to represent 10% of that electorate.  People also need the power of petition – real petition, to alter, amend, or recall.  Good government is nothing more than good representation, and making sure all segments of society are represented.  People must have more than just a voice; they must also have some power.  The power of money has to be curtailed or eliminated.  Monopolies must be eliminated, unless they are publicly controlled.  Power and authority must be more equally and fairly distributed between local, state and national governments and institutions.  Taxes must be fairly apportioned, and fall most heavily on those most profiting from the system.  Money reforms would go far in achieving fair taxation – more than most people could imagine.

Finally, before citing a few cases, I’d like to add a note about voting in the US presidential elections.  Few people understand the power of the presidency as they should.  A book could be written on this topic alone, but here is the bottom line:

The power of the chief executive (President) is FAR greater to do harm (evil) than to do good. To effect positive change, the president can only:  1) advocate for good causes, and 2) sign legislation he approves;  3)  set policy, within certain limits;  4)  make cabinet and court appointments.   There can be arguments made that some good can come from using the executive emergency powers for good ends using the unsavory means listed below.  I do not believe they are good arguments, however.

On the other hand, for negative change or outcomes the president can 1) start “preemptive” or aggressive wars, justified or not; 2) declare martial law;  3) unleash WMDs as he deems appropriate;  4) suspend the bill of rights, including habeas corpus (not constitutionally, but as a practical matter and for a time)  5) veto congressional actions;  6) order troops and guards to attack US citizens;  7)  assume tyrannical and dictatorial powers;  8)  order CIA, NSA, FBI. DOJ, IRS and other agents to act against political opponents;  9)  selectively direct, slant, withhold, or otherwise influence and control news and information to serve special interests;  10)  Involve the USA in treaties like WTO, GATT, NAFTA, etc., that may not be in the best interests of our citizens or our national sovereignty.  While congress has to approve final agreements, the president can “make deals” with other world leaders that can harm us;  11) make irresponsible threats or take foolish positions on international issues that could lead to economic or military retaliation or hostilities against our country; or  12)  instill policies such as waterboarding and torture of prisoners that would lead to the mobilization and recruitment of terrorist attacks against Americans at home or abroad.   Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay are two prime examples of this.

It should be fairly obvious to even the most ignorant citizen that a bad president could do far more harm to our nation and the world than a good president could do good.

And the above is the crux of the danger of voting for a candidate that can’t win.  It could elect the candidate that could cause us the most harm.  This is a real and practical matter of assessing the consequences of our actions, in this case how we vote.

Case Histories:

Case history #1.  In 1912, Woodrow Wilson (D) was elected via manipulation by the money and banking interests that wanted to pass the “Aldrich Bill” to establish a private central bank under a national charter.  This was achieved by the bankers getting Theodore Roosevelt to form a third party (Progressive, or “Bull Moose”) to oppose William Howard Taft, the R candidate who opposed the Banking Bill, and by “educating” Wilson on the benefits of a national public central banking system, and then backing his candidacy.  This entire story is told in detail by G. Edward Griffin in his book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. There are many other good, well-written books that have researched the details of this sordid episode in American history.  The splitting of the Republican Party and backing of the Democrat Wilson was a grand and glorious triumph of the power of funny-money in America.  This was perhaps the most extreme example of financially backing a major party split in order to achieve a single-minded result, or purpose:  the passage of a national banking act that places the authority over money in private banking hands, essentially out of control of the American people or its government.  Even worse, it creates a master-slave relationship between the master-bankers (Wall Street & City of London) and the Federal Government of the USA.  Remember Rothschild’s worlds:  “Allow me to control a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”.  He who controls the money controls everything that depends on it, and that is now the entire world economy.

Case history #2:  George W. Bush win the 2000 election because of votes drawn away from Al Gore in just one Florida county: Dade.  I was there.  I was no big fan of Gore, but I knew the disaster that Bush would bring to our country, and wrote plainly about it.

#3:  One county north of Dade, in Palm Beach, a confusing ballot layout resulted in an abnormally large number of votes for Pat Buchanon, a third party protest candidate.  However, the deviation was not large enough to have made a difference in tilting the count to Bush if Ralph Nader had not taken even more votes away from Gore.  It is indisputable that most of those Nader votes would have gone to Gore in a runoff between the two major candidates.  The 2000 election was decided by 3rd party “spoiler” votes, as well as political maneuvering resulting in the Supreme Court deciding the election in favor of Bush.  Another case of electing the “greater of two evils” with minority party votes?    Change the system to instant run-off or proportional representation and I will change my opinion.  The system makes the difference.

The 2004 election as also decided by a small enough margin so that, in addition to election machine rigging, third party “spoilers” took enough votes away from Kerry to have decided the election in favor of Bush.  Was Bush 2004 “the lesser or greater of two evils”.  Or was he just the worst of the two candidates who had a chance to win?  Kerry was nowhere near my top choice for a D nominee (in fact he was my last choice), but he could not have done worse that GWB, in my opinion.

As for political party platforms, they are not the same, whether you consider them the better of two goods or the lesser of two evils.  I rate the Democratic far superior to the Republican, even though I dislike some aspect of it.

Those who have learned that the financial banking elites have a corrupting influence on both major parties may not have learned that they are usually not equally corrupted, or corrupted in the same degrees, or in the same ways.  Some sins are worse than others.  The effects of the sins must be evaluated.  Discrimination and judgment must come into play.

Election reforms are needed, in addition to other critical reforms in our Federal Reserve System (Rescinding the FRA of 1913) and our system of money creation.  We also need reforms in making our government more responsive to the citizens, as opposed to giant trans-national or global corporate interests.  Time is growing short to make positive changes at the national and international levels.

Remember to follow the money.  Ask, “who benefits” from any ballot or third party candidacy.  Who gains?  Who profits?  Ask yourself who would you vote for if you were not voting for an “idealist” third party candidate who cannot win, and ask yourself if your third party vote could cost the better major candidate the election in a close race.

Finally.  If we are not aware that powerful money interests are buying elections in many clever ways.  Then we are in that “ignorant” category, and are either not paying attention or have interests that blind us to the facts.  Many third party candidates receive funds from money powers just to split the progressive vote, or vise-verse when it is in the money powers interests to do so.

It’s all about the consequences, folks.  Within 20 years we will know all about consequences, if we stay on this course.

Sibel, I do sincerely hope this helps answer your questions.  My prayers and blessings go out to you and all whistle-blowers and truth-tellers, who do so at such great risk and cost to themselves and their families.

Sincerely,

Jere L Hough

Kansas City, MO

https://wealthmoney.wordpress.com The way money is destroying our world, and how to stop it.  My latest blog.

http://finalwords.blogspot.com From 2003.  My first real online summary of the growing world crisis.

http://jerelhough.blogspot.com An open letter to Barack Obama two days before his assumption of the US Presidency.  Other essays on our money and economic crisis.

http://www.forum.webofdebt.com I manage this forum for Ellen H Brown, the author of Web of Debt. This book is a “must read” for anyone who cares about our country and the world.  If your eyes are not already open, it WILL open them.

http://webofdebt.wordpress.com Ellen Brown’s Web of Debt money reform blog site that I also help moderate.

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. Jere,
    I have read Ellens book and having lived in the UK and now Canada i am aware of the economic, political and historical shenanigans referred to in many of the texts and books you mention. I had a good education but have learned more since leaving school and am self taught in many fields and considered very intelligent and knowledgable. it is gratifying to meet someone who is obviously intelligent and uses it for the greater good as hard as that is…
    I have written letters and posted in certain blogs and forums relating to this subject and it is sometimes crushing to see how stupid and ignorant people can be. God grant you many more years to continue what you obviously are doing so well.

  2. Thanks Karl, I need all the prayers I can get. We all do. Things are getting worse by the moment, and all of the important truths are being hidden from the people. Those who kow the facts view it all as some kind of surreal Alice in Wonderland event.

    It’s like we’re on the Titanic listening to the captain say:

    “Pay no mind to that iceberg going by. We just lightly brushed it, and there’s nothing to worry about. Water below decks? Just a trickle! Go back out to the dance floor and enjoy yourselves. Lifeboats? Pshaw. Don’t be silly. Complimentary champagne for everyone! This is the greatest ship ever built and it’s unsinkable. Not a thing to worry about. Party on.”

    But don’t be too hard on the people. They are stupid and ignorant because they are kept that way, Information and education is withheld from them for the benefit of the “controllers” – the Money-Power elites who manage everything from behind the scenes.

    Thanks for your comments, Karl. But I think it unlikely that God can grant many more years of our determined efforts to self-destruct. I am not doing well enough to prevent that, or even slow it down, it seems.

  3. I feel the unstated pain… but you and I get it and there are many others like us, even my 22yr old son, we are both typing up a storm and trying to put references to all the information that is available, my son, however tends to quote information from well informed conspiracy sites but of course people turn off when you go there, he is also suspicious of pretty much all persons in power and their connections and motives. I on the other hand try to give some the benefit of the doubt, they try but the system is just too structured against change. (JFK, Reagan and even Obama) tried and are trying but with no real success. Today we have the Internet, forums and social media, twitter, youtube, facebook etc maybe now is the time of greatest opportunity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: