TRUING THE VOTE
It is a sad state of affairs when you read the results of an important meeting between your country’s leader(s) and the heads of state of a foreign government—and you are at a loss as to who to believe! For instance, our President informs us that it is spelled out clearly in an agreement with the nation of Iran that they will not refine weapons-grade plutonium for at least ten years. The Iranian leader then informs his people he made no such agreement with the American leader—that Iran will continue to enrich plutonium for nuclear warheads. Somebody is lying--but who?
I don’t trust the Iranians. Unless you are a little bit long in the tooth, you might not recall or have ever heard that America and Iran were once very close allies. American pilots trained Iranians to the point that their skill with jets that we sold them was approaching that of the Israeli pilots. We had many servicemen stationed in Iran in the early and mid seventies, and these men and women had close personal relationships with their Iranian counterparts. In the higher echelons of Iranian society at least, the men and women of Iran dressed in the same style as Americans, drove American cars—smoked and drank like Americans. For an American, being given an assignment in Iran was considered a positive move in the development of his/her career.
Then - President Jimmy Carter decided that Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran was not moving as quickly in adopting democratic reforms in the nation of Iran as he would like, and so Carter let those in opposition to the Shah know that he (Carter) would not be averse to their sending the Shah, very ill at that time, into exile from Iran. That move paved the way for the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then in exile himself in France, to return to Iran and assume control of that nation’s government. Overnight, the government was transformed from a secular underpinning to one whose real power is in the hands of Muslim religious leaders, who preach Sharia as the law of the land.
While some would attempt to persuade you that the government of Iran is kinder and gentler than that of the earlier Ayatollahs, evidence of any such softening is in short supply. Iran became, and continues to this day to be, an importer of the philosophy of hate and of weapons to help the faithful eliminate the infidel object of that hatred. Who is an infidel? Anyone who does not pledge fealty to Allah, the Muslim god, is an infidel. By the way, were you aware that there is a tenet of the Islam religion that removes any stigma from lying to an infidel?
That is a somewhat circuitous route to bring us to the question as to whether you think that any information coming from a wretched government like that of Iran should not be instantly rejected, discounted, disbelieved?
You would—unless your own government was led by a person or persons who themselves seem to have difficulty with the truth.
You see, each of us is given the option to lie or to tell the truth any time we speak. Unfortunately, when we make a habit of the former, we lose believability exponentially with each successive lie we tell; to the point that anyone who believes what we say, without independent verification, must be considered a fool.
That brings us to the news story about a group of people, presumably of Russian extraction, who have allegedly hacked into the machines that will be used to count votes in upcoming elections. They have supposedly only penetrated the security of a couple of states, but the potential for much greater mischief cannot be discounted.
In order to make certain that American elections are fair and just, Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson has suggested that the federal government supervise the entire election process—“to ensure the sanctity of the vote.”
The question is—do you trust the leaders of your government, with its record of obfuscation, delay and outright lying to protect its own—do you trust them to fairly and equably monitor the presidential election?
Are you at all interested in knowing in which direction Russian intervention might tip the American elections? Who would they rather see head of the American ship of state? While you are contemplating that, consider whether you think the current administration has a vested interest in the outcome of the elections in November?
Do you trust EITHER the Russians or our own government to allow the American people to elect their leaders without any outside intervention?