http://www.zetatalk2.com/index/zeta230.htm[2/5/2012 11:42:50 AM]
ZetaTalk: Popular Vote
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
What possible reason would there be to call out the US Supreme Court to defend a candidate that had lost the popular
vote, on all fronts. Gore had won an edge of 21 electoral votes, by some 300,000 popular votes, and was only 3
electoral votes shy of winning the Presidency. Gore also won the popular vote in Florida, a fact clear to even the ultra-
right Buchannan who admitted the 3,000 vote he received above what might be expected in the Jewish enclave of Palm
Beach were not
Bush family. Where this might have been expected in Florida, controlled by the Bush family, what would cause the
Supreme Court to break its long standing tradition of
endured throughout its history?
The cry that every vote should count, echoed by the GOP lawyers when their behind-the-scenes efforts to boost their
candidate by illegal amendments to absentee ballots were exposed, were put aside when the Democratic opposition
presented the same argument. This familiar court-room posture by lawyers, whereby they contradict themselves from
one day to the next when trying to win the argument of the moment, could have been expected of lawyers. But what
would cause the Supreme Court, when stopping a legally called re-count and effort to examine every ballot for the
intent of the voter, to cast a blind eye to
The only difference appeared to be partisanship, that the judges themselves had been appointed by Republicans, as the
final vote was strictly along partisan lines.
But is there more to this picture? Did the Supreme Court not have more to lose, in this vote, in that the public looks to
it to be non-partisan and supporting the Constitution? Where talk of disenfranchised voters and a partisan Supreme
Court will die down, the shock that the citizenry feels at what is a betrayal of their voting rights will not diminish.
Often the larger the shock, the greater the stunned silence, so that the long-reaching and long-lasting effect of this
shock are not gauged by the smug winning party. Nevertheless, a deep distrust of the new administration will be the
result of this action, which will only be understood when attempts to win over the public for new initiatives seem to
fall flat. In disenfranchising the American voter, as well as the Florida voter, the Supreme Court did more than express
partisanship. They displayed, to those looking behind the moves, a cold and firm plan of the wealthy elite to survive
during the coming changes, at the expense of democracy and the people those in government service have sworn to
serve.
The banking industry takes precedence over the public.
The wealthy stock holder takes precedence over the investor with limited means.
The military elite requires sustenance to support the wealthy elite, in enclaves they will develop and stock with
taxpayer funds as the time draws near.
Martial Law is to be called when the public, which expects equal service with the elite from the government
they have supposedly elected and supported with their taxes, makes demands.
Did those at the fore of the GOP campaign, and voting to suppress the voter's right from the bench of the Supreme
Court, know of this ultimate plan? If not in full understanding of the circumstances which would call for such steps,
they understood that too little would be available to go around, and that choices would have to be made. In this, they
threw themselves in with those who were to be survivors, the elite, and deserted those they had sworn to serve. The
public can expect more of the same, over the few months and years left until the coming pole shift. The US
government will increasingly serve the elite, and will fail to give any explanation of their actions to the public. In this
blatant service to the elite they will become increasingly irrelevant - an administration serving itself, and not a leader
the public could respect or take seriously.
http://www.zetatalk2.com/govmt/g120.htm[2/5/2012 11:42:51 AM]
