vote fraud – Election Fraud Blog

Throughout the 1980s, Project Censored highlighted a number of alarming reductions to government access and accountability (see Censored 1982 #6, 1984 #8, 1985 #3 and 1986 #2). It tracked the small but systematic changes made to existing laws and the executive orders introduced. It now appears that these actions may have been little more than a prelude to the virtual lock box against access that is being constructed around the current administration.

â€œThe Bush Administration has an obsession with secrecy,â€ says Representative Henry Waxman, the Democrat from California who, in September 2004, commissioned a congressional report on secrecy in the Bush Administration. â€œIt has repeatedly rewritten laws and changed practices to reduce public and congressional scrutiny of its activities. The cumulative effect is an unprecedented assault on the laws that make our government open and accountable.â€

Changes to Laws that Provide Public Access

to Federal Records

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives citizens the ability to file a request for specific information from a government agency and provides recourse in federal court if that agency fails to comply with FOIA requirements. Over the last two decades, beginning with Reagan, this law has become increasingly diluted and circumvented by each succeeding administration.

Under the Bush Administration, agencies make extensive and arbitrary use of FOIA exemptions (such as those for classified information, privileged attorney-client documents and certain information compiled for law enforcement purposes) often inappropriately or with inadequate justification. Recent evidence shows agencies making frivolous (and sometimes ludicrous) exemption claims, abusing the deliberative process privilege, abusing the law enforcement exemption, and withholding data on telephone service outages.

Quite commonly, the Bush Administration simply fails to respond to FOIA requests at all. Whether this is simply an inordinate delay or an unstated final refusal to respond to the request, the requesting party is never told. But the effect is the same: the public is denied access to the information.

The Bush Administration also engages in an aggressive policy of questioning, challenging and denying FOIA requestersâ€™ eligibility for fee waivers, using a variety of tactics. Measures include narrowing the definition of â€œrepresentative of news media,â€ claiming information would not contribute to public understanding.

Ten years ago, federal agencies were required to release documents through FOIAâ€“â€“even if technical grounds for refusal existedâ€“â€“unless â€œforeseeable harmâ€ would result from doing so. But, according to the Waxman report, an October 2001 memo by Attorney General John Ashcroft instructs and encourages agencies to withhold information if there are any technical grounds for withholding it under FOIA.

In 2003, the Bush Administration won a new legislative exemption from FOIA for all National Security Agency â€œoperational files.â€ The Administrationâ€™s main rationale for this new exemption is that conducting FOIA searches diverts resources from the agencyâ€™s mission. Of course, this rationale could apply to every agency. As NSA has operated subject to FOIA for decades, it is not clear why the agency now needs this exemption.

The Presidential Records Act ensures that after a president leaves office, the public will have full access to White House documents used to develop public policy. Under the law and an executive order by Ronald Reagan, the presumption has been that most documents would be released. However, President Bush issued an executive order that establishes a process that generally blocks the release of presidential papers.

Changes to Laws that Restrict Public Access

to Federal Records

The Bush Administration has dramatically increased the volume of government information concealed from public view. In a March 2003 executive order, President Bush expanded the use of the national security classification. The order eliminated the presumption of disclosure, postponed or avoided automatic declassification, protected foreign government information, reclassified some information, weakened the panel that decides to exempt documents from declassification and adjudicates classification challenges, and exempted vice presidential records from mandatory declassification review.

The Bush Administration has also obtained unprecedented authority to conduct government operations in secret, with little or no judicial oversight. Under expanded law enforcement authority in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department can more easily use secret orders to obtain library and other private records, obtain â€œsneak-and-peekâ€ warrants to conduct secret searches, and conduct secret wiretaps. In addition, the Bush Administration has used novel legal interpretations to expand its authority to detain, try, and deport individuals in secret. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush Administration has asserted unprecedented authority to detain anyone whom the executive branch labels an â€œenemy combatantâ€ indefinitely and secretly. It has authorized military trials that can be closed not only to the public but also to the defendants and their own attorneys. And the Administration has authorized procedures for the secret detention and deportation of aliens residing in the United States.

Congressional Access to Information

Compared to previous administrations, the Bush Administration has operated with remarkably little congressional oversight. This is partially attributable to the alignment of the parties. The Republican majorities in the House and the Senate have refrained from investigating allegations of misconduct by the White House. Another major factor has been the Administrationâ€™s resistance to oversight. The Bush Administration has consistently refused to provide to members of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and congressional commissions the information necessary for meaningful investigation and review of the Administrationâ€™s activities.

For example, the Administration has contested in court the power of the Government Accountability Office to conduct independent investigations and has refused to comply with the rule that allows members of the House Government Reform Committee to obtain information from the executive branch, forcing the members to go to court to enforce their rights under the law. It has also ignored and rebuffed numerous requests for information made by members of Congress attempting to exercise their oversight responsibilities with respect to executive branch activities, and repeatedly withheld information from the investigative commission established by Congress to investigate the September 11 attacks.

Update Rep. Waxmanâ€™s companion bill, HR 5073 IH, the Restore Open Government Act of 2004, was not heard by Congress before the Winter Recess in December, and the bill was not reintroduced in the Opening Session in January 2005. However, on February 16, after the commencement of the 109th Congress, John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill entitled the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2005, S. 394 (the Cornyn-Leahy bill), which according to their joint statement â€œis designed to strengthen laws governing access to government information, particularly the Freedom of Information Act.â€ On the same day, an identical bill, H.R. 867, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.).¹

For more information on Rep. Waxmanâ€™s legislation and work on open government, site, please visit www.democrats.reform.house.gov.

NOTE

1. St. Petersburg Times (Florida), February 18, 2005, â€œImproving access to information.â€

#2 Media Coverage Fails on Iraq:

Fallujah and the Civilian Deathtoll

part 1: Fallujahâ€”War Crimes Go Unreported

Sources:

Peacework, December 2004â€“January 2005

Title: â€œThe Invasion of Fallujah: A Study in the Subversion of Truthâ€

Authors: Mary Trotochaud and Rick McDowell

World Socialist Web Site, November 17, 2004

Title: â€œU.S. Media Applauds Destruction of Fallujahâ€

Author: David Walsh

The NewStandard, December 3, 2004

Title: â€œFallujah Refugees Tell of Life and Death in the Kill Zoneâ€

Author: Dahr Jamail

Faculty Evaluators: Bill Crowley, Ph. D., Sherril Jaffe, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Brian K. Lanphear

Over the past two years, the United States has conducted two major sieges against Fallujah, a city in Iraq. The first attempted siege of Fallujah (a city of 300,000 people) resulted in a defeat for Coalition forces. As a result, the United States gave the citizens of Fallujah two choices prior to the second siege: leave the city or risk dying as enemy insurgents. Faced with this ultimatum, approximately 250,000 citizens, or 83 percent of the population of Fallujah, fled the city. The people had nowhere to flee and ended up as refugees. Many families were forced to survive in fields, vacant lots, and abandoned buildings without access to shelter, water, electricity, food or medical care. The 50,000 citizens who either chose to remain in the city or who were unable to leave were trapped by Coalition forces and were cut off from food, water and medical supplies. The United States military claimed that there were a few thousand enemy insurgents remaining among those who stayed in the city and conducted the invasion as if all the people remaining were enemy combatants.

Burhan Fasaâ€™a, an Iraqi journalist, said Americans grew easily frustrated with Iraqis who could not speak English. â€œAmericans did not have interpreters with them, so they entered houses and killed people because they didnâ€™t speak English. They entered the house where I was with 26 people, and shot people because [the people] didnâ€™t obey [the soldiersâ€™] orders, even just because the people couldnâ€™t understand a word of English.â€ Abu Hammad, a resident of Fallujah, told the Inter Press Service that he saw people attempt to swim across the Euphrates to escape the siege. â€œThe Americans shot them with rifles from the shore. Even if some of them were holding a white flag or white clothes over their head to show they are not fighters, they were all shot.â€ Furthermore, â€œeven the wound[ed] people were killed. The Americans made announcements for people to come to one mosque if they wanted to leave Fallujah, and even the people who went there carrying white flags were killed.â€ Former residents of Fallujah recall other tragic methods of killing the wounded. â€œI watched them [U.S. Forces] roll over wounded people in the street with tanksâ€¦ â€¦This happened so many times.â€

Preliminary estimates as of December of 2004 revealed that at least 6,000 Iraqi citizens in Fallujah had been killed, and one-third of the city had been destroyed.

Journalists Mary Trotochaud and Rick McDowell assert that the continuous slaughter in Fallujah is greatly contributing to escalating violence in other regions of the country such as Mosul, Baquba, Hilla, and Baghdad. The violence prompted by the U.S. invasion has resulted in the assassinations of at least 338 Iraqiâ€™s who were associated with Iraqâ€™s â€œnewâ€ government.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq, and more specifically Fallujah, is causing an incredible humanitarian disaster among those who have no specific involvement with the war. The International Committee for the Red Cross reported on December 23, 2004 that three of the cityâ€™s water purification plants had been destroyed and the fourth badly damaged. Civilians are running short on food and are unable to receive help from those who are willing to make a positive difference. Aid organizations have been repeatedly denied access to the city, hospitals, and refugee populations in the surrounding areas.

Abdel Hamid Salim, spokesman for the Iraqi Red Crescent in Baghdad, told Inter Press Service that none of their relief teams had been allowed into Fallujah three weeks after the invasion. Salim declared that â€œthere is still heavy fighting in Fallujah. And the Americans wonâ€™t let us in so we can help people.â€

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour voiced a deep concern for the civilians caught up in the fighting. Louise Arbour emphasized that all those guilty of violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws must be brought to justice. Arbour claimed that all violations of these laws should be investigated, including â€œthe deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, the killing of injured persons and the use of human shields.â€

Marjorie Cohn, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists, has noted that the U.S. invasion of Fallujah is a violation of international law that the U.S. had specifically ratified: â€œThey [U.S. Forces] stormed and occupied the Fallujah General Hospital, and have not agreed to allow doctors and ambulances to go inside the main part of the city to help the wounded, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.â€

According to David Walsh, the American media also seems to contribute to the subversion of truth in Fallujah. Although, in many cases, journalists are prevented from entering the city and are denied access to the wounded, corporate media showed little concern regarding their denied access. There has been little or no mention of the immorality or legality of the attacks the United States has waged against Iraq. With few independent journalists reporting on the carnage, the international humanitarian community in exile, and the Red Cross and Red Crescent prevented from entering the besieged city, the world is forced to rely on reporting from journalists embedded with U.S. forces. In the U.S. press, we see casualties reported for Fallujah as follows: number of U.S. soldiers dead, number of Iraqi soldiers dead, number of â€œguerillasâ€ or â€œinsurgentsâ€ dead. Nowhere were the civilian casualties reported in the first weeks of the invasion. An accurate count of civilian casualties to date has yet to be published in the mainstream media.

part 2: Civilian Death Toll Is Ignored

Sources:

The Lancet, October 29, 2004

Title: â€œMortality Before and After the 2003 Invasion of Iraqâ€

Authors: Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi and Gilbert Burnham

The Lancet, October 29, 2004

Title: â€œThe War in Iraq: Civilian Casualties, Political Responsibilitiesâ€

Author: Richard Horton

The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 4, 2005

Title: â€œLost Countâ€

Author: Lila Guterman

FAIR, April 15, 2004

Title: â€œCNN to Al Jazeera: Why Report Civilian Deaths?â€

Author: Julie Hollar

Faculty Evaluator: Sherril Jaffe, Ph.D.

Student Researcher: Melissa Waybright

In late October, 2004, a peer reviewed study was published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, concluding that at least 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since it was invaded by a United States-led coalition in March 2003. Previously, the number of Iraqis that had died, due to conflict or sanctions since the 1991 Gulf War, had been uncertain. Claims ranging from denial of increased mortality to millions of excess deaths have been made. In the absence of any surveys, however, they relied on Ministry of Health records. Morgue-based surveillance data indicate the post-invasion homicide rate is many times higher than the pre-invasion rate.

In the present setting of insecurity and limited availability of health information, researchers, headed by Dr. Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University, undertook a national survey to estimate mortality during the 14.6 months before the invasion (Jan 1, 2002, to March 18, 2003) and to compare it with the period from March 19, 2003, to the date of the interview, between Sept 8 and 20, 2004. Iraqi households were informed about the purpose of the survey, assured that their name would not be recorded, and told that there would be no benefits or penalties for refusing or agreeing to participate.

The survey indicates that the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is in reality about 100,000 people, and may be much higher. The major public health problem in Iraq has been identified as violence. However, despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground. Ninety-five percent of reported killings (all attributed to U.S. forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry.

The study was released on the eve of a contentious presidential electionâ€”fought in part over U.S. policy on Iraq. Many American newspapers and television news programs ignored the study or buried reports about it far from the top headlines. â€œWhat went wrong this time? Perhaps the rush by researchers and The Lancet to put the study in front of American voters before the election accomplished precisely the opposite result, drowning out a valuable study in the clamor of the presidential campaign.â€ (Lila Guterman, Chronicle of Higher Education)

The studyâ€™s results promptly flooded though the worldwide mediaâ€”everywhere except the United States, where there was barely a whisper about the study, followed by stark silence. â€œThe Lancet released the paper on October 29, the Friday before the election, when many reporters were busy with political stories. That day the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune each dedicated only about 400 words to the study and placed the stories inside their front section, on pages A4 and A11, respectively. (The news media in Europe gave the study much more play; many newspapers put articles about it on their front pages.)

In a short article about the study on page A8, the New York Times noted that the Iraqi Body Count, a project to tally civilian deaths reported in the news media, had put the maximum death count at around 17,000. The new study, the article said, â€œis certain to generate intense controversy.â€ But the Times has not published any further news articles about the paper. The Washington Post, perhaps most damagingly to the studyâ€™s reputation, quoted Marc E. Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, as saying, â€œThese numbers seem to be inflated.â€ Mr. Garlasco says now that he hadnâ€™t read the paper at the time and calls his quote in the Post â€œreally unfortunate.â€ (Lila Guterman, Chronicle of Higher Education).

Even so, nobody else in American corporate media bothered to pick up the story and inform our citizens how many Iraqi citizens are being killed at the hands of a coalition led by our government. The study was never mentioned on television news, and the truth remains unheard by those who may need to hear it most. The U.S. government had no comment at the time and remains silent about Iraqi civilian deaths. â€œThe only thing we keep track of is casualties for U.S. troops and civilians,â€ a Defense Department spokesman told The Chronicle.

When CNN anchor Daryn Kagan did have the opportunity to interview the Al Jazeera network editor-in-chief Ahmed Al-Sheikâ€”a rare opportunity to get independent information about events in Fallujahâ€”she used the occasion to badger Al-Sheik about whether the civilian deaths were really â€œthe storyâ€ in Fallujah. CNNâ€™s argument was that a bigger story than civilian deaths is â€œwhat the Iraqi insurgents are doingâ€ to provoke a U.S. â€œresponseâ€ is startling. â€œWhen reports from the ground are describing hundreds of civilians being killed by U.S. forces, CNN should be looking to Al Jazeeraâ€™s footage to see if it corroborates those accountsâ€”not badgering Al Jazeeraâ€™s editor about why he doesnâ€™t suppress that footage.â€ (MediaWatch, Asheville Global Report)

Study researchers concluded that several limitations exist with this study, predominantly because the quality of data received is dependent on the accuracy of the interviews. However, interviewers believed that certain essential charcteristics of Iraqi culture make it unlikely that respondents would have fabricated their reports of the deaths. The Geneva Conventions have clear guidance about the responsibilities of occupying armies to the civilian population they control. â€œWith the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error. The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator, and an attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population.

The illegal, heavy handed tactics practiced by the U.S. military in Iraq evident in these news stories have become what appears to be their standard operating procedure in occupied Iraq. Countless violations of international law and crimes against humanity occurred in Fallujah during the November massacre.

Evidenced by the mass slaughtering of Iraqis and the use of illegal weapons such as cluster bombs, napalm, uranium munitions and chemical weapons during the November siege of Fallujah when the entire city was declared a â€œfree fire zoneâ€ by military leaders, the brutality of the U.S. military has only increased throughout Iraq as the occupation drags on.

According to Iraqis inside the city, at least 60 percent of Fallujah went on to be totally destroyed in the siege, and eight months after the siege entire districts of the city remained without electricity or water. Israeli style checkpoints were set up in the city, prohibiting anyone from entering who did not live inside the city. Of course non-embedded media were not allowed in the city.

update: Since these stories were published, countless other incidents of illegal weapons and tactics being used by the U.S. military in Iraq have occurred.

During â€œOperation Spearâ€ on June 17th, 2005, U.S.-led forces attacked the small cities of Al-Qaâ€™im and Karabla near the Syrian border. U.S. warplanes dropped 2,000 pound bombs in residential areas and claimed to have killed scores of â€œmilitantsâ€ while locals and doctors claimed that only civilians were killed.

As in Fallujah, residents were denied access to the city in order to obtain medical aid, while those left inside the city claimed Iraqi civilians were being regularly targeted by U.S. snipers.

According to an IRIN news report, Firdos al-Abadi from the Iraqi Red Crescent Society stated that 7,000 people from Karabla were camped in the desert outside the city, suffering from lack of food and medical aid while 150 homes were totally destroyed by the U.S. military.

An Iraqi doctor reported on the same day that he witnessed, â€œcrimes in the west area of the countryâ€¦the American troops destroyed one of our hospitals, they burned the whole store of medication, they killed the patient in the wardâ€¦they prevented us from helping the people in Qaâ€™im.â€

Also like Fallujah, a doctor at the General Hospital of al-Qaâ€™im stated that entire families remained buried under the rubble of their homes, yet medical personnel were unable to reach them due to American snipers.

Iraqi civilians in Haditha had similar experiences during â€œOperation Open Marketâ€ when they claimed U.S. snipers shot anyone in the streets for days on end, and U.S. and Iraqi forces raided homes detaining any man inside.

Corporate media reported on the â€œliberationâ€ of Fallujah, as well as quoting military sources on the number of â€œmilitantsâ€ killed. Any mention of civilian casualties, heavy-handed tactics or illegal munitions was either brief or non-existent, and continues to be as of June 2005.

For additional information:

For those interested in following these stories, it is possible to obtain information by visiting the English Al-Jazeera website at http://english.aljazeera. net/HomePage, my website at www.dahrjamailiraq.com, The World Tribunal on Iraq at www.worldtribunal.org, Peacework Magazine at www.afsc.org/pwork/0412/041204.htm , and other alternative/independent news websites.

#3 Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage

Source:

In These Times, 02/15/05

Title: â€œA Corrupted Electionâ€

Authors: Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 26, 2005

Title: â€œJim Crow Returns To The Voting Boothâ€

Authors: Greg Palast, Rev. Jesse Jackson

www.freepress.org, Nov. 23, 2004

Title: â€œHow a Republican Election Supervisor Manipulated the 2004 Central Ohio Voteâ€

Authors: Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman

Faculty Evaluator: Ann Neel, MA

Student Researcher: Mike Osipoff

Political analysts have long counted on exit polls to be a reliable predictor of actual vote counts. The unusual discrepancy between exit poll data and the actual vote count in the 2004 election challenges that reliability. However, despite evidence of technological vulnerabilities in the voting system and a higher incidence of irregularities in swing states, this discrepancy was not scrutinized in the mainstream media. They simply parroted the partisan declarations of â€œsour grapesâ€ and â€œletâ€™s move onâ€ instead of providing any meaningful analysis of a highly controversial election.

The official vote count for the 2004 election showed that George W. Bush won by three million votes. But exit polls projected a victory margin of five million votes for John Kerry. This eight-million-vote discrepancy is much greater than the error margin. The overall margin of error should statistically have been under one percent. But the official result deviated from the poll projections by more than five percentâ€”a statistical impossibility.

Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, the two companies hired to do the polling for the Nation Election Pool (a consortium of the nationâ€™s five major broadcasters and the Associated Press), did not immediately provide an explanation for how this could have occurred. They waited until January 19, the eve of the inauguration.

Edison and Mitofskyâ€™s â€œinauguralâ€ report, â€œEvaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004,â€ stated that the discrepancy was â€œmost likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters.â€ The media widely reported that this report proved the accuracy of the official count and a Bush victory. The body of the report, however, offers no data to substantiate this position. In fact, the report shows that Bush voters were more likely to complete the survey than Kerry voters. The report also states that the difference between exit polls and official tallies was far too great to be explained by sampling error, and that a systematic bias is implicated.

The Edison and Mitofsky report dismisses the possibility that the official vote count was wrong, stating that precincts with electronic voting systems had the same error rates as precincts with punch-card systems. This is true. However, it merely points to the unreliability of punch-card and electronic systems, both of which are slated for termination under the Helping America Vote Act of 2002. According to the report, only in precincts that used old-fashioned, hand-counted paper ballots did the official count and the exit poll data fall within the normal margin of error.

Also, the report shows, the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official count was considerably greater in the critical swing states. And while this fact is consistent with allegations of fraud, Mitofsky and Edison suggest, without providing any data or theory to back up their claim, that this discrepancy is somehow related to media coverage.

In precincts that were at least 80 percent for Bush, the average within-precinct error (WPE) was a whopping 10.0 percentâ€”the numerical difference between the exit poll predictions and the official count. Also, in Bush strongholds, Kerry received only about two-thirds of the votes predicted by exit polls. In Kerry strongholds, exit polls matched the official count almost exactly (an average WPE of 0.3).

This exit poll data is a strong indicator of a corrupted election. But the case grows stronger if these exit poll discrepancies are interpreted in the context of more than 100,000 officially logged reports of irregularities and possible fraud during Election Day 2004.

Bush campaign officials compiled a 1,886-name â€œcaging list,â€ which included the names and addresses of predominantly black voters in the traditionally Democratic Jacksonville, Florida. While Bush campaign spokespersons stated that the list was a returned mail log, they did not deny that such a list could be used to challenge voters on Election Day. In fact, the county elections supervisor says that he could see no other purpose for compiling such a list.

In Franklin County Ohio, Columbus voters faced one of the longest ballot lines in history. In many inner city precincts, voters sometimes had three-hour waits to get to the poll before being required to cast ballots within five minutes, as demanded by the Republican-run Board of Elections. Seventy-seven out of the countyâ€™s 2,866 voting machines malfunctioned on Election Day. One machine registered 4,258 votes for Bush in a precinct where only 638 people voted. At least 125 machines were held back at the opening of the polls, and another 68 were never deployed. While voters were rushed through the process, 29 percent of the precincts had fewer voting machines than in the 2000 election despite a 25 percent increase in turnout.

Taken together, these problems point to an election that requires scrutiny. Even if the discrepancy between exit polls and actual vote counts is simply a fluke, other flaws and questionable practices in the voting process make one wonder whether or not the peopleâ€™s voice was actually heard and if we are truly a working democracy.

Update by Josh Mitteldorf: Some news is too important to report. People might get upset, and the smooth functioning of our democracy would be jeopardized. Thus the media has collectively done the responsible thing, and refrainedâ€”at great cost to themselves, be assuredâ€”from publicizing doubts about the legitimacy of the 2004 election, in order to help assure the â€œorderly succession of power.â€

Unfortunately, some internet sites such as Commondreams.org and Freepress.org do not realize their obligations to the commonwealth, and have thus been less responsible in maintaining silence. And thereâ€™s an upbeat radio voice from Vermont, Thom Hartmann, who would be fun to listen to if only he didnâ€™t insist on relating so many discomfiting truths.

But so long as you stay away from these isolated derelicts, you will be gratified to receive a reassuringly consistent story line: George Bush won the 2004 election fair and square. Itâ€™s time to stop asking pointless questions. Get with the program!

Update by Greg Palast and Reverend Jessie Jackson: There are conspiracy nuts out there on the Internet who think that John Kerry defeated George Bush in Ohio and other states. I know, because I wrote â€œKerry Wonâ€ for TomPaine.com two days after the election.

â€œKerry Wonâ€ was the latest in a series coming out of a five-year investigation, begun in November 2000, for BBC Television Newsnight and Britainâ€™s Guardian papers, dissecting that greasy sausage called American electoral democracy.

On November 11, a week after TomPaine.com put the report out on the â€˜Net, I received an email from the New York Times Washington Bureau. Hot on the investigation of the veracity of the vote, the Times reporter asked me pointed questions:

Question #1: Are you a â€œsore loserâ€?

Question #2: Are you a â€œconspiracy nutâ€?

There was no third question. Investigation of the vote was, apparently, complete. The next day, their thorough analysis of the evidence yielded a front-page story, â€œVOTE FRAUD THEORIES, SPREAD BY BLOGS, ARE QUICKLY BURIED.â€

Hereâ€™s a bit of what the Paper of Record failed to record.

In June 2004, well before the election, my co-author of â€œJim Crowâ€ Rev. Jesse Jackson brought me to Chicago. We had breakfast with Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards. The Reverend asked the Senator to read my report of the â€œspoilageâ€ of Black votesâ€”one million African Americans who cast ballots in 2000 but did not have their votes register on the machines.

Edwards said heâ€™d read it over after heâ€™d had his bagel. Jackson snatched away his bagel. No read, no bagel. A hungry Senator was genuinely concernedâ€”these were, after all, Democrats whose votes did not tally, and he shot the information to John Kerry. A couple of weeks later, Kerry told the NAACP convention that one million African-American votes were not counted in 2000, but in 2004 he would not let it happen again.

But he did let it happen again. More than a million votes in 2004 were cast and not counted.

As a reporter, itâ€™s not my job to help the Democratic Party learn to tie its shoes. And, as a nonpartisan journalist, Iâ€™m not out to expose the Republican Partyâ€™s new elaborate campaign to prevent voters from votingâ€”but I must report it. However, editors and news producers in my home country, the USA, seem less than interested. Indeed, they are downright hostile to reporting this story of the shoplifting of our democracy.

America has an apartheid voting system, denying African-Americans, Hispanics and American Natives the assurance their ballots will count. Worse, America has an apartheid media which denies racial disenfranchisement a seat at the front of the news bus.

It was in November 2000 I first ran into the U.S. news lordâ€™s benign neglect of the â€œnew Jim Crowâ€ methods of denying citizens of color their vote. While working with the British Guardian papers just days before the 2000 presidential election, I discovered that Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State, Katharine Harris, had wrongly purged tens of thousands of Black citizens from voter rolls as â€œfelonsâ€â€”when in fact their only crime had been V.W.B.: Voting While Black.

Nothing appeared in the U.S. press. However, I admit that the Florida purge story was picked up by the New York Times â€¦ fofur years later.

Just before the November 2004 election, BBC television Newsnight discovered new, confidential â€œcaging listsâ€ which we got our hands on from inside the Republican National Committee headquarters. These were rosters of thousands of minority voters targeted to prevent them from voting on election day: a violation of federal law. It was big news in Europe and South America. In the USA, there was nothing except an attack on BBCâ€™s report by ABCâ€™s web site. ABCâ€™s only listed source for their attack on the BBC was the Republican Party.

The story of the purge of Black voters, the million missing Black ballots cast but not counted, the caging lists, and other games used to deny the vote to the dark-skinned and the poor, would have been buried long ago if not for BBC Television, Harperâ€™s Magazine (may it last a thousand years), Britainâ€™s Guardian and Observer, The Nation, the op-ed editors at the San Francisco Chronicle and Seattle Post-Intelligencer and, provocatively, Hustler Magazine. Even if ignored or actively â€˜dissed by U.S. â€œmainstreamâ€ media, the story will be continue to be reported, due to the passionate insistence of Reverend Jackson, from a thousand pulpits.

Thanks to GeorgeBush.com for capturing the â€˜caging lists.â€™ And bless the blogs, for they shall set the truth free: TomPaine.com, Buzzflash, Working-for-Change and other Internet sites carried the story over the electronic Berlin Wall.

Finally, my gratitude to our indefatigable investigative team, particularly Oliver Shykles and Matt Pascarella for their work on this storyâ€”on which they continue todayâ€”and to Meirion Jones, producer nonpareil at BBC televisionâ€™s Newsnight.

For Additional Documentation of Voter Fraud 2004 See Chapters 2 and 3.

#4 Surveillance Society Quietly Moves In

Sources:

Information Management Journal, Mar/Apr 2004

Title: â€œPATRIOT Actâ€™s Reach Expanded Despite Part Being Struck Downâ€

Author: Nikki Swartz

LiP Magazine, Winter 2004

Title: â€œGrave New Worldâ€

Author: Anna Samson Miranda

Capitol Hill Blue, June 7, 2004

Title: â€œWhere Big Brother Snoops on Americans 24/7â€

Authors: Teresa Hampton and Doug Thompson

Faculty Evaluator: John Steiner, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Sandy Brown, Michelle Jesolva

â€œWhile the evening news rolled footage of Saddam being checked for head lice, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 was quietly signed into law.â€1

On December 13, 2003, President George W. Bush, with little fanfare and no mainstream media coverage, signed into law the controversial Intelligence Authorization Act while most of America toasted the victory of U.S. forces in Iraq and Saddamâ€™s capture. None of the corporate press covered the signing of this legislation, which increases the funding for intelligence agencies, dramatically expands the definition of surveillable financial institutions, and authorizes the FBI to acquire private records of those individuals suspected of criminal activity without a judicial review. American civil liberties are once again under attack.

History has provided precedent for such actions. Throughout the 1990s, erosions of these protections were taking place. As part of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism bill adopted in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Justice Department was required to publish statistics going back to 1990 on threats or actual crimes against federal, state and local employees and their immediate families when the wrongdoing related to the workersâ€™ official duties. The numbers were then to be kept up to date with an annual report.2 Members of congress, concerned with the threat this type of legislation posed to American civil liberties, were able to strike down much of what the bill proposed, including modified requirements regarding wiretap regulations.

The â€œatmosphere of fearâ€ generated by recent terrorist attacks, both foreign and domestic, provides administrations the support necessary to adopt stringent new legislation. In response to the September 11 attacks, new agencies, programs and bureaucracies have been created. The Total Information Office is a branch of the United States Department of Defenseâ€™s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. It has a mission to â€œimagine, develop, apply, integrate, demonstrate and transition information technologies, components and prototype, closed-loop, information systems that will counter asymmetric threats by achieving total information awareness.â€3 Another intelligence gathering governmental agency, The Information Awareness Office, has a mission to gather as much information as possible about everyone in a centralized location for easy perusal by the United States government. Information mining has become the business of government.

In November 2002, the New York Times reported that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was developing a tracking system called â€œTotal Information Awarenessâ€ (TIA), which was intended to detect terrorists through analyzing troves of information. The system, developed under the direction of John Poindexter, then-director of DARPAâ€™s Information Awareness Office, was envisioned to give law enforcement access to private data without suspicion of wrongdoing or a warrant.4 The â€œTotal Information Awarenessâ€ programâ€™s name was changed to â€œTerrorist Information Awarenessâ€ on May 20, 2003 ostensibly to clarify the programâ€™s intent to gather information on presumed terrorists rather than compile dossiers on U.S. citizens.

Despite this name change, a Senate Defense Appropriations bill passed unanimously on July 18, 2003, expressly denying any funding to Terrorist Information Awareness research. In response, the Pentagon proposed The Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, or MATRIX, a program devised by longtime Bush family friend Hank Asher as a pilot effort to increase and enhance the exchange of sensitive terrorism and other criminal activity information between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. The MATRIX, as devised by the Pentagon, is a State run information generating tool, thereby circumventing congressâ€™ concern regarding the appropriation of federal funds for the development of this controversial database. Although most states have refused to adopt these Orwellian strategies, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Florida have all jumped on the TIA band wagon.

Yet, somehow, after the apparent successful dismantling of TIA, expressed concern by Representatives Mark Udall of Colorado, Betty McCollum of Minnesota, Ron Paul of Texas and Dennis Moore of Kansas, and heightened public awareness of the MATRIX, the Intelligence Authorization Act was signed into law December 13, 2003.5

On Thursday, November 20, 2003 Minnesota Representative Betty McCollum stated that, â€œThe Republican Leadership inserted a controversial provision in the FY04 Intelligence Authorization Report that will expand the already far-reaching USA Patriot Act, threatening to further erode our cherished civil liberties. This provision gives the FBI power to demand financial and other records, without a judgeâ€™s approval, from post offices, real estate agents, car dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and many other businesses. This provision was included with little or no public debate, including no consideration by the House Judiciary Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction. It came as a surprise to most Members of this body.â€6

According to LiP Magazine, â€œGovernmental and law-enforcement agencies and MATRIX contractors across the nation will gain extensive and unprecedented access to financial records, medical records, court records, voter registration, travel history, group and religious affiliations, names and addresses of family members, purchases made and books read.â€7

Peter Jennings, in an ABC original report, explored the commercial applications of this accumulated information. Journalist and author Peter Oâ€™Harrow, who collaborated with ABC News on the broadcast â€œPeter Jennings Reporting: No Place to Hide,â€ states â€œâ€¦marketersâ€”and now, perhaps government investigatorsâ€”can study what people are likely to do, what kind of attitudes they have, what they buy at the grocery store.â€8 Although this program aired on prime-time mainstream television, there was no mention of the potential for misuse of this personal information network or of the controversy surrounding the issues of privacy and civil liberties violations concerning citizens and civil servants alike. Again, the sharing of this kind of personal information is not without precedent.

On November 12, 1999, Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which permits financial institutions to share personal customer information with affiliates within the holding company. The Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 expands the definition of a surveillable financial institution to include real estate agencies, insurance companies, travel agencies, Internet service providers, post offices, casinos and other businesses as well. Due to massive corporate mergers and the acquisition of reams of newly acquired information, personal consumer data has been made readily available to any agency interested in obtaining it, both commercial and governmental.

With the application of emerging new technologies such as Radio Frequency Identification chips or RFIDs, small individualized computer chips capable of communicating with a receiving computer, consumer behavior can literally be tracked from the point of purchase to the kitchen cupboard, and can be monitored by all interested parties.

Update by Anna Miranda: The United States is at risk of turning into a full-fledged surveillance society. The tremendous explosion in surveillance-enabling technologies, combined with the ongoing weakening in legal restraints that protect our privacy mean that we are drifting toward a surveillance society. The good news is that it can be stopped. Unfortunately, right now the big picture is grim.â€”ACLU⁹

The PATRIOT Act

Fifteen â€˜sunsetâ€™ provisions in the PATRIOT Act are set to expire at the end of 2005. One amendment, the â€œlibrary provisionâ€ went before Congress in June. Despite President Bushâ€™s threat to veto, lawmakers, including 38 Republicans, voted 238 to 187 to overturn the provision, which previously allowed law enforcement officials to request and obtain information from libraries without obtaining a search warrant. Although inspectors still have the â€œrightâ€ to search library records, they must get a judgeâ€™s approval first.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed Congress in April that this provision has never been used to acquire information, although the American Library Association recently reported that over 200 requests for information were submitted since the PATRIOT Act was signed into law in October 2001.

The overturning of the library provision has been seen as a small victory in the fight to reclaim privacy rights. Rep. Saunders, who was responsible for almost successfully having the provision repealed last year, commented that â€œconservative groups have been joining progressive organizations to call for changes.â€¹⁰

The MATRIX

The fight to the right for privacy continues to wage on with more successes, as the MATRIX program was officially shut down on April 15, 2005. The program, which consisted of 13 statesâ€”and only had four states remaining prior to its closure, received $12 million in funding from the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. By utilizing a system called FACTS (Factual Analysis Criminal Threat Solution), law enforcement officials from participating states were able to share information with one another and utilized this program as an investigative tool to help solve and prevent crimes. According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, â€œBetween July 2003 and April 2005, there have been 1,866,202 queries to the FACTS application.â€¹¹ However, of these queries, only 2.6 percent involved terrorism or national security.

Although the MATRIX has been shut down, Florida law enforcement officials are pursuing continuing the program and rebuilding it. Officials have sent out a call for information from vendors beginning a competitive bidding process.

RFID Technology and the REAL ID Act

On May 10, 2005, President Bush secretly signed into law the REAL ID Act, requiring states within the next three years to issue federally approved electronic identification cards. Attached as an amendment to an emergency spending bill funding troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, the REAL ID Act passed without the scrutiny and debate of Congress.

One of the main concerns of the electronic identification card is identity theft. The Act mandates the cards to have anti-counterfeiting measures, such as an electronically readable magnetic strip or RFID chip. Privacy advocates argue that RFID chips can be read from â€œunauthorizedâ€ scanners allowing third parties or the general public to gather and/or steal private information about an individual. Amidst growing concerns about identity theft, the REAL ID Act has given no consideration to this drawback.

Other privacy concerns regarding the electronic identification card is the use of information by third parties once theyâ€™ve scanned the cards and accessed the information. At this time, the Act does not specify what can be done with the information. A company or organization scanning your identification card could potentially sell your personal information if strict guidelines on what to do with the information are not mandated.

Inability to conform over the next three years will leave citizens and residents of the United States paralyzed. Identification cards that do not meet the federally mandated standards will not be accepted as identification for travel, opening a bank account, receiving social security checks, or participating in government benefits, among other things.

Notes

1. LiP Magazine. http://www.lipmagazine.org/.

2. The Washington Post December 01, 1997, Final Edition.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness.

4. Electronic Privacy Information Center http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/. Information Awareness Office, See HR 2417.

5. Ibid.

6. Congressional Record: November 22,2003 pg.E2399.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h112203.html.

7. LiP Magazine. http://www.lipmagazine.org/.

8. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Primetime/story.

9. http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/PrivacyMain.cfm.

10. http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20050406114413.asp.

11. http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/press_releases/20050415_matrix_project.html.

#5 U.S. Uses Tsunami to Military Advantage in Southeast Asia

Sources:

Janeâ€™s Foreign Report (Janeâ€™s Defence), February 15, 2005

Title: â€œU.S. Turns Tsunami into Military Strategyâ€

The Irish Times, February 8, 2005

Title: â€œU.S. Has Used Tsunami to Boost Aims in Stricken Areaâ€

Author: Rahul Bedi

Inter Press Service, January, 18 2005

Title: â€œBush Uses Tsunami Aid to Regain Foothold in Indonesiaâ€

Author: Jim Lobe

Faculty Evaluator: Tony White, Ph. D., Craig Winston, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Ned Patterson

The tragic and devastating power of 2004â€™s post holiday tsunami was plastered across the cover of practically every newspaper around the world for the better part of a month. As the death toll rose by the thousands every day, countries struggled to keep pace with the rapidly increasing need for aid across the Indian Ocean Basin.

At the same time that U.S. aid was widely publicized domestically, our coinciding military motives were virtually ignored by the press. While supplying our aid (which when compared proportionately to that of other, less wealthy countries, was an insulting pittance), we simultaneously bolstered military alliances with regional powers in, and began expanding our bases throughout, the Indian Ocean region.

Long viewed as a highly strategic location for U.S. interests, our desire to curtail Chinaâ€™s burgeoning economic and military might is contingent upon our control of this area. In the months following the tsunami, writes Rahul Bedi in The Irish Times, the U.S. revived the Utapao military base in Thailand it had used during the Vietnam War. Task force 536 is to be moved there to establish a forward positioning site for the U.S. Air Force.

During subsequent tsunami relief operations, the U.S. reactivated its military co-operation agreements with Thailand and the Visiting Forces Agreement with the Philippines. U.S. Navy also vessels utilized facilities in Singapore, keeping with previous treaties. Further, the U.S. marines and the navy arrived in Sri Lanka to bolster relief measures despite the tsunami-hit islandâ€™s initial reluctance to permit their entry.

The U.S. also stepped up their survey of the Malacca Straits, over which China exercises considerable influence, and through which 90 percent of Japanâ€™s oil supplies pass. The United States has had trouble expanding its military influence in the region largely due to suspicions by Indonesia and Malaysia that the U.S. is disguising imperial aims under the goal of waging war against terror. The two countries have opposed an American plan to tighten security in the vital Malacca Straits shipping lanes, which might have involved U.S. troops stationed nearby.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that U.S. relief to the tsunami-affected region would assist the war against terror and introduce â€œAmerican values to the region.â€ The Bush Administration is also reviving its hopes of normalizing military ties with Indonesia, writes Jim Lobe for InterPress Service. The worldâ€™s most populous Muslim nation, its strategically located archipelago, critical sea lanes, and historic distrust of China have made it an ideal partner for containing Beijing.

During a January 2005 visit to Jakarta, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told reporters, â€œI think if weâ€™re interested in military reform here, and certainly this Indonesian government is and our government is, I think we need to possibly reconsider a bit where we are at this point in history moving forward.â€

According to an article in the Asheville Global Report, the following month the U.S. State Department made a decision to renew the International Education and Military Training (IMET) program for Indonesia, despite considerable human rights issues.

According to Bedi, Washington has long wanted a navel presence in Trincomalee, eastern Sri Lanka, or alternatively in Galle, further south, to shorten the supply chain from its major regional military base in distant Diego Garcia, which the British Ocean Territory leased to the U.S. in 1966 for the length of fifty years. The use of these bases would ring China, giving the U.S. added control over that countryâ€™s activities.

Diego Garciaâ€™s geostrategic location in the Indian Ocean and its full range of naval, military and communications facilities gives it a critical role supporting the U.S. Navyâ€™s forward presence in the North Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean Region. However, because of the basesâ€™ remoteness and the fact that its lease from Britain expires in 2016, the U.S. seeks an alternative location in the region. â€œClearly these new bases will strengthen Washingtonâ€™s military logistical support in the region,â€ says Professor Anuradha Chenoy at Delhiâ€™s Jawaharlal Nehru University. She went on to emphasize that an alternative to the Diego Garcia base must be found soon, as the lease from Britain will soon expire.

Long before the tsunami struck, an article dated April 21, 2003, by Josy Joseph on Rediff.com explained that a classified report commissioned by the United States Department of Defense expresses a desire for access to Indian bases and military infrastructures. The United States Air Force specifically wants to establish bases in India. The report, entitled â€œIndo-U.S. Military Relations: Expectations and Perceptions,â€ was distributed amongst high-ranking U.S. officials and a handful of senior members within the Indian government. It continues on about the Defense Departmentâ€™s desire to have â€œaccess closer to areas of instability.â€1

The report says, â€œAmerican military officers are candid in their plans to eventually seek access to Indian bases and military infrastructure. Indiaâ€™s strategic location in the centre of Asia, astride the frequently traveled Sea Lanes Of Communication (SLOC) linking the Middle East and East Asia, makes India particularly attractive to the U.S. military.â€

The report also quotes U.S. Lieutenant Generals as saying that the access to Indian bases would enable the U.S. military â€œto be able to touch the rest of the worldâ€ and to â€œrespond rapidly to regional crisis.â€ A South Asia Area Officer of the U.S. State Department has been quoted as saying, â€œIndiaâ€™s strategic importance increases if existing U.S. relationships with Asia fail.â€

Post-tsunami U.S. actions in the Indian Ocean illustrate its intention to move this agenda forward sooner rather than later.

Note

1. Joseph, Josy; â€œTarget Next: Indian Military Basesâ€; rediff.com, April 21, 2003; and Lobe, Jim; â€œSkepticism over renewed military ties with Indonesiaâ€; Asheville Global Report, March 10â€“16, 2005.

#6 The Real Oil for Food Scam

Sources:

Harperâ€™s Magazine, December 2004

Title: â€œThe UN is Us: Exposing Saddam Husseinâ€™s silent partnerâ€

Author: Joy Gordon

http://www.harpers.org/TheUNisUS.html

Independent/UK, December 12, 2004

Title: â€œThe oil for Food â€˜Scandalâ€™ is a Cynical Smokescreenâ€

Author: Scott Ritter

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1212-23.htm

Faculty Evaluator: Robert McNamara, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Deanna Murrell

The U.S. has accused UN officials of corruption in Iraqâ€™s oil for food program. According to Joy Gordon and Scott Ritter the charge was actually an attempt to disguise and cover up long term U.S. government complicity in this corruption. Ritter says, â€œthis posturing is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, designed to shift attention away from the debacle of George Bushâ€™s self-made quagmire in Iraq, and legitimize the invasion of Iraq by using Iraqi corruption and not the now-missing weapons of mass destruction, as the excuse.â€ Gordon arrives at the conclusion that, â€œperhaps it is unsurprising that today the only role its seems the United States expects the UN to play in the continuing drama of Iraq is that of scapegoat.â€

According to Gordon the charges laid by the U.S. accounting office are bogus. There is plenty of evidence of corruption in the â€œoil-for-foodâ€ program, but the trail of evidence leads not to the UN but to the U.S. â€œThe fifteen members of the Security Councilâ€”of which the United States was by far the most influentialâ€”determined how income from oil proceeds would be handled, and what the funds could be used for.â€ Contrary to popular understanding, the Security Council is not the same thing as the UN. It is part of it, but operates largely independently of the larger body. The UNâ€™s personnel â€œsimply executed the program that was designed by the members of the Security Council.â€

The claim in the corporate media was that the UN allowed Saddam Hussein to steal billions of dollars from oil sales. If we look, as Gordon does, at who actually had control over the oil and whoâ€™s hands held the money, a very different picture emerges. â€œIf Hussain did indeed smuggle $6 billion worth of oil in the â€˜the richest rip off in world history,â€™ he didnâ€™t do it with the complicity of the UN. He did it on the watch of the U.S. Navy.â€ explains Gordon.

Every monetary transaction was approved by the U.S. through its dominant role on the Security Council. Ritter explains, â€œthe Americans were able to authorize a $1 billion exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimize the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border.â€ In another instance, a Russian oil company â€œbought oil from Iraq under â€˜oil for foodâ€™ at a heavy discount, and then sold it at full market value to primarily U.S. companies, splitting the difference evenly between [the Russian company] and the Iraqis. This U.S. sponsored deal resulted in profits of hundreds of millions of dollars for both the Russians and the Iraqis, outside the control of â€˜oil for food.â€™ It has been estimated that 80 percent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under â€˜oil for foodâ€™ ended up in the United States.â€

Not only were criminals enriched in this nefarious scheme, it also ended up sabotaging the original purpose of â€œoil for food.â€ Gordon explains, â€œHow Iraq sold its oil was also under scrutiny, and the United States did act on what it perceived to be skimming by Hussain in these deals. The solution that it enacted, however, succeeded in almost bankrupting the entire Oil for Food Program within months.â€

Harebrained Security Council policy not only succeeded in enriching the dishonest, it also virtually destroyed the program. According to Gordon, the U.S. and UK attempted to prevent kickbacks resulting from artificially low prices: â€œInstead of approving prices at the beginning of each sales period (usually a month), in accordance with normal commercial practices, the two allies would simply withhold their approval [of the price] until after the oil was soldâ€”creating a bizarre scenario in which buyers had to sign contracts without knowing what the price would be.â€ The result was â€œoil sales collapsed by forty percent, and along with them the funds for critical humanitarian imports.â€

What we have here, according to Gordon and Ritter, is a bare-faced attempt by criminals to shift blame to the innocent. Gordon concludes, â€œLittle of the blame can credibly be laid at the feet of â€˜the UN bureaucracy.â€™ Far more of the fault lies with policies and decisions of the Security Council in which the United States played a central role.â€

Update by Joy Gordon: The accusations against the Oil for Food Program have served as a springboard for general attacks on the credibility of the United Nations as a whole, as well as personal attacks on Kofi Annan. For the most part the mainstream media has seized on the accusations and repeated them, without doing any of the research that would give the discussion more integrity. For example, â€œthe United Nationsâ€ is criticized for â€œitsâ€ failures, and the Secretary General is then blamed because these events â€œhappened on his watch.â€ What was not mentioned at all for the first year of media coverage is that â€œthe UNâ€ is made up of several different parts, and that the part that designed and oversaw the Oil for Food Program was the Security Council, whose decisions cannot be overridden or modified in any way by the Secretary General. Not only that, while the most vitriolic accusations against the UN have come from the United States, the U.S. is in fact the most dominant member of the Security Council. The U.S. agreed to all the decisions and procedures of the Oil for Food Program that are now being so harshly criticized as â€œfailures of the United Nations.â€

The mainstream press, for the most part, has repeated that the Oil for Food Program lacked accountability, oversight, or transparency. What is most striking about this is that the elaborate structure of oversight that was in fact in placeâ€”and is never mentioned at allâ€”is so easily available. It is on the programâ€™s web site in complete detail along with huge amounts of information, making the program in fact highly transparent. Yet the mainstream press coverage reflects none of this.

Last fall we saw the beginnings of some acknowledgement of the U.S. responsibility for Iraqâ€™s ongoing smuggling, as some Democrats introduced evidence in hearings that all three U.S. administrations knew of and supported Iraqâ€™s illicit trade with Jordan and Turkey, two key U.S. allies. The press picked that up, but little else.

Since my article came out, there has been a good deal of press coverage from public radio stations and from foreign press. In addition, I have testified twice before Congressional committees, where the members of Congress were incredulous to hear that in fact the program operated very differently than they had been toldâ€”even though the information I provided them was obvious, basic, publicly available, and easily accessible.

For additional information:

Organizations actively addressing these issues include the UN Association and the UN Foundation.

Information about the accusations against the program can be found at the following sites: http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/

UN web site on Oil for Food program: http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

The Volcker Committee investigating the accusations: http://www.iic-offp.org/

#7 Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood

Sources:

www.truthout.org, Feb. 28, 2005

Title: â€œDead Messengers: How the U.S. Military Threatens Journalistsâ€

Author: Steve Weissman

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022405A.shtml

Title: â€œMedia Repression in â€˜Liberatedâ€™ Landâ€

InterPress Service, November 18, 2004

Author: Dahr Jamail

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=26333

Faculty Evaluator: Elizabeth Burch, Ph.D.

Student Researcher: Michelle Jesolva

According to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)1, 2004 was the deadliest year for reporters since 1980, when records began to be kept. Over a 12-month span, 129 media workers were killed and 49 of those deaths occurred in the Iraqi conflict. According to independent journalist Dahr Jamail, journalists are increasingly being detained and threatened by the U.S.-installed interim government in Iraq. When the only safety for a reporter is being embedded with the U.S. military, the reported stories tend to have a positive spin. Non-embedded reporters suffer the great risk of being identified as enemy targets by the military.

The most blatant attack on journalists occurred the morning of April 8, 2004, when the Third Infantry fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad killing cameramen Jose Couso and Taras Protsyuk and injuring three others. The hotel served as headquarters for some 100 reporters and other media workers. The Pentagon officials knew that the Palestine Hotel was full of journalists and had assured the Associated Press that the U.S. would not target the building. According to Truthout, the Army had refused to release the records of its investigation. The Committee to Protect Journalists, created in 1981 in order to protect colleagues abroad from governments and others who have no use for free and independent media, filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act to force the Army to release its results. The sanitized copy of the releasable results showed nothing more than a Commander inquiry.

Unsatisfied with the U.S. militaryâ€™s investigation, Reporters Without Borders, an international organization that works to improve the legal and physical safety of journalists worldwide, conducted their own investigation. They gathered evidence from journalists in the Palestine Hotel at the time of the attacks. These were eye witness accounts that the military neglected to include in their report. The Reporters Without Borders report also provided information disclosed by others embedded within the U.S. Army, including the U.S. military soldiers and officers directly involved in the attack. The report stated that the U.S. officials first lied about what had happened during the Palestine Hotel attack and then, in an official statement four months later, exonerated the U.S. Army from any mistake of error in judgment. The investigation found that the soldiers in the field did not know that the hotel was full of journalists. Olga Rodriguez, a journalist present at the Palestine Hotel during the attack, stated on KPFAâ€™s Democracy Now! that the soldiers and tanks were present at the hotel 36 hours before the firing and that they had even communicated with the soldiers.

There have been several other unusual journalist attacks, including:

â€° March 22, 2003: Terry Lloyd, a reporter for British TV station ITN, was killed when his convoy crossed into Iraq from Kuwait. French cameraman Frederic Nerac and Lebanese interpreter Hussein Osman, both in the convoy, disappeared at the same time.2

â€° June, 2003: According to Dahr Jamail, within days of the â€˜handoverâ€™ of power to an interim Iraqi government in 2003, al-Jazeera had been accused of inaccurate reporting and was banned for one month from reporting out of Iraq. The ban was later extended to â€œindefinitelyâ€ and the interim government announced that any al-Jazeera journalist found reporting in Iraq would be detained. Corentin Fleury, a French freelance photographer, and his interpreter Bahktiyar Abdulla Hadad, were detained by the U.S. military when they were leaving Fallujah before the siege of the city began. They were both held in a military detention facility outside of the city and were questioned about the photos that were taken of bomb-stricken Fallujah. Fleury was released after five days but his interpreter, Bahktiyar Abdulla Hadad, remained.

â€° April 8, 2004: The same day of the attack on the Palestine Hotel, Truthout writes, the U.S. bombed the Baghdad offices of Abu Dhabi TV and Al-Jazeera while they were preparing to broadcast, killing Al-Jazeera correspondent Tariq Ayyoub. August 17, 2004: Mazen Dana was killed while filming (with permission) a prison, guarded by the U.S. military in a Baghdad suburb. According to Truthoutâ€™s Steve Weissman, the Pentagon issued a statement one month later claiming that the troops had acted within the rules of engagement.3

â€° March 4, 2005: Nicola Calipari, one of ItalyÃs highest ranking intelligence officials, was shot dead by U.S. troops. He was driving with Italian journalist Guiliana Sgrena, who had just been released from captivity and was on her way to Baghdadâ€™s airport. Sgrena survived the attack. She stated in an interview with Amy Goodman on KPFAâ€™s Democracy Now! that the troops â€œshot at us without any advertising, any intention, any attempt to stop us beforeâ€ and they appeared to have shot the back of the car.4

In all cases, little investigation has been conducted, no findings have been released and all soldiers involved have been exonerated.

At the World Economic Forum, on a panel titled: â€œWill Democracy Survive the Media?,â€ Eason Jordan, a CNN news chief, commented that the U.S. commanders encourage hostility toward the media and fail to protect journalists, especially those who choose not to embed themselves under military control. According to Truthout, during a discussion about the number of journalists killed during the Iraq war, Jordan stated that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by U.S. troops, but had been targeted. Jordan also insisted that U.S. soldiers had deliberately shot at journalists. After the forum, Jordan recanted the statements and was forced to resign his job of 23 years at CNN.

As a matter of military doctrine, the U.S. military dominates, at all costs, every element of battle, including our perception of what they do. The need for control leads the Pentagon to urge journalists to embed themselves within the military, where they can go where they are told and film and tell stories only from a pro-American point of view. The Pentagon offers embedded journalists a great deal of protection. As the Pentagon sees it, non-embedded eyes and ears do not have any military significance, and unless Congress and the American people stop them, the military will continue to target independent journalists. Admirals and generals see the world one way, reporters another; the clash leads to the deaths of too many journalists.

Update by Steve Weissman: When Truthout boss Marc Ash asked me earlier this year to look into the Pentagonâ€™s killing of journalists, many reporters believed that the military was purposely targeting them. But, as I quickly found, the crime was more systemic and in many ways worse. As far as anyone has yet proved, no commanding officer ever ordered a subordinate to fire on journalists as such. Not at Baghdadâ€™s Palestine Hotel in April 2003. Not at the Baghdad checkpoint where soldiers wounded Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and killed her Secret Service protector in March 2005. Andnot anywhere else in Iraq or Afghanistan.

How, then, did the U.S. military end up killing journalists?

It started with a simple decisionâ€”the Pentagonâ€™s absolute refusal to take any responsibility for the lives of journalists who chose to work independently rather than embed themselves in a British or American military unit. Despite repeated requests from Reuters and other major news organizations, Pentagon officials still refuse to take the steps needed to reduce the threat to independent journalists:

1. The military must be forced to respect the work that independent journalists do, protect them where possible, and train soldiers to recognize the obvious differences between rocket launchers and TV cameras.

2. Commanders need to pass on information about the whereabouts of journalists with a direct order not to shoot at them.

3. When soldiers do kill journalists, the Pentagon needs to hold them responsible, something that no military investigation has yet done.

4. When the military tries to forcibly exclude journalists and otherwise prevent â€œhostile informationâ€ about its operations, such as its destruction of Falujah, Congress and the media need to step in and force the Pentagon to back off.

One other problem needs urgent attention. Military intelligence regularly monitors the uplink equipment that reporters use to transmit their stories and communicate by satellite phone. But, as the BBCâ€™s Nik Gowing discovered, the electronic intelligence mavens make no effort to distinguish between journalistic communications and those of enemy forces. All the sensing devices do is look for electronic traffic between the monitored uplinks and known enemies.

In Gowingâ€™s view, this led the Americans to order a rocket attack on the Kabul office of the Arab broadcaster Al Jazeera, whose journalists kept regular contact with the Taliban as part of their journalistic coverage.

To date, neither Congress nor the military have done what they need to do to protect unembedded journalists and the information they provide. More shamefully, the mass media continues to underplay the story.

But, for those who want it, reliable information is easily available, either from the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters without Borders, or the International Federation of Journalists.

NOTES

1. www.ifj.org.

2. â€œMissing ITN Crew May Have Come Under â€˜Friendly Fire,â€™â€ www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/ Story/0,2763,919832,00.html, March 23, 2003.

3. Democracy Now! March 23, 2005, Wounded Spanish Journalist Olga Rodriguez describes the U.S. Attack on the Palestine Hotel that killed two of her colleagues.

4. Democracy Now! April 27, 2005, Giuliana Sgrena Blasts U.S. Cover Up, Calls for U.S. and Italy to leave Iraq.

#8 Iraqi Farmers Threatened By Bremerâ€™s Mandates

Sources:

Grain, October 2004

Title: â€œIraqâ€™s New Patent Law: A Declaration of War against Farmersâ€

Authors: Focus on the Global South and GRAIN

TomPaine.com, October 26, 2004

Title: â€œAdventure Capitalismâ€

Author: Greg Palast

The Ecologist, February 4, 2005

Title: â€œU.S. Seeking to Totally Re-engineer Iraqi Traditional Farming System into a U.S.-style Corporate Agribusinessâ€

Author: Jeremy Smith

Faculty Evaluator: John Wingard, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Cary Barker

In his article â€œAdventure Capitalism,â€ Greg Palast exposes the contents of a secret plan for â€œimposing a new regime of low taxes on big business, and quick sales of Iraqâ€™s banks and bridgesâ€”in fact, â€˜ALL state enterprisesâ€™â€”to foreign operators.â€ This economy makeover plan, he claims, â€œgoes boldly where no invasion plan has gone before.â€

This highly detailed program, which began years before the tanks rolled, outlines the small print of doing business under occupation. One of the goals is to impose intellectual property laws favorable to multinationals. Palast calls this â€œhistoryâ€™s first military assault plan appended to a program for toughening the target nationâ€™s copyright laws.â€

It also turns out that those of us who may have thought it was all about the oil were mostly right. â€œThe plan makes it clear thatâ€”even if we didnâ€™t go in for the oilâ€”we certainly wonâ€™t leave without it.â€

In an interview with Palast, Grover Norquist, the â€œ capo di capi of the lobbyist army of the right,â€ makes the plans even more clear when he responds, â€œThe right to trade, property rights, these things are not to be determined by some democratic election.â€ No, these things were to be determined by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the interim government lead by the U.S.

Before he left his position, CPA administrator Paul Bremer, â€œthe leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority issued exactly 100 orders that remade Iraq in the image of the Economy Plan.â€ These orders effectively changed Iraqi law.

A good example of this business invasion involves agriculture. The details of this part of the â€œmarket make-overâ€ are laid out in the Grain website article called â€œIraqâ€™s new Patent Law: a declaration of war against farmers.â€

â€œOrder 81â€ of the 100 is entitled â€œPatent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety.â€ According to Grain staff writers, this order â€œmade it illegal for Iraqi farmers to re-use seeds harvested from new varieties registered under the law.â€ Plant Variety Protection (PVP)is the tool used for defining which seeds are re-useable and which are not. PVP â€œis an intellectual property right or a kind of patent for plant varieties which gives an exclusive monopoly right on planting material to a plant breeder who claims to have discovered or developed a new variety. So the â€œprotectionâ€ in PVP has nothing to do with conservation, but refers to safeguarding of the commercial interests of private breeders (usually large corporations) claiming to have created the new plants.â€

Dovetailing with this order is a plan to â€œre-educate farmersâ€ in order to increase their production. As part of a $107 million â€œprojectâ€ facilitated by Texas A&M, farmers will be given equipment and new high-yielding PVP protected seeds. Jeremy Smith from the Ecologist points out that, â€œAfter one year, farmers will see soaring production levels. Many will be only too willing to abandon their old ways in favor of the new technologies. Out will go traditional methods. In will come imported American seeds.â€ Then, based on the new patent laws, â€œany â€˜clientâ€™ (or â€˜farmerâ€™ as they were once known) wishing to grow one of their seeds, â€˜pays a licensing fee for each varietyâ€™.â€

Smith explains that â€œUnder the guise of helping Iraq back on its feet, the U.S. setting out to re-engineer the countryâ€™s traditional farming system into a U.S.-style corporate agribusiness.â€ In that traditional system, â€œ97 percent of Iraqi farmers used their own saved seed or bought seed from local markets.â€ He continues, â€œUnfortunately, this vital heritage and knowledge base is now believed lost, the victim of the current campaign and the many years of conflict that preceded it.â€

Of course, this project will also introduce â€œnew chemicalsâ€”pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, all sold to the Iraqis by corporations such as Monsanto, Cargill and Dow.â€

As Grain staff writers point out, â€œover the past decade, many countries of the South have been compelled to adopt seed patent laws through bilateral treatiesâ€ with the U.S. The Iraqi situation, however, is different in that â€œthe adoption of the patent law was not part of negotiations between sovereign countries. Nor did a sovereign law-making body enact it as reflecting the will of the Iraqi people.â€ Essentially, the U.S. has reneged on its promise of freedom for the Iraqi people. The actions of the U.S. clearly show that the will of the Iraqi people is not relevant. Paul Bremerâ€™s 100 orders make sure it will stay that way. Grain argues â€œIraqâ€™s freedom and sovereignty will remain questionable for as long as Iraqis do not have control over what they sow, grow, reap and eat.â€ Palast says poignantly, â€œThe free market paradise in Iraq is not free.â€

Update by Greg Palast: In February 2003, White House spokesman Ari Fleisher announced the preparations for â€œOperation Iraqi Liberationâ€â€”O.I.L.

I canâ€™t make these things up.

Iâ€™m not one of the those people who believes George Bush led us into Iraq for the oil but, from the documents Iâ€™ve obtained, itâ€™s clear that we sure as hell arenâ€™t leaving without it.

At BBC Television Newsnight, which has granted me journalistic asylum from the commercially-crazed madhouse of the American news market, we ran Fleisherâ€™s announcement of operation O.I.L. (later corrected to Operation Iraqi Freedomâ€”OIF!). More importantly, we ran a series of storiesâ€”which I also developed for Harperâ€™s Magazine in the USAâ€”on the pre-invasion plans to slice up and sell off Iraqâ€™s assets, â€œespecially the oil,â€ in the terms of one State Department secret document.

After we got our hands on the confidential document to â€œMove Iraqâ€™s Economy Forwardâ€â€”i.e. sell off its oilâ€”we at BBC put General Jay Garner on the air. Garner, whom the president appointed as viceroy over the newly-conquered Iraq, confirmed the plan to sell off Iraqâ€™s oilâ€”and his refusal to carry out the deed. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fired him and smeared him for his dissent. This was big, big news in Europe where I reported itâ€”but in the U.S. the story was buried.

We later discovered that the plan to sell off Iraqâ€™s oil was replaced by another confidential plan. This one, 323 pages long and literally written by oil industry consultants, was obtained by BBC and Harperâ€™s after a protracted legal war with the State Department. We discovered, interestingly, that this industry plan to create a state oil company favorable to OPEC was first conceived in February 2001. In other words, invasion was in the works, including stratagems for controlling Iraqâ€™s oil, within weekâ€™s of George Bushâ€™s first inauguration and well before the September 11 attack.

The discovery of this plan for Iraqâ€™s oil, received exactly zero coverage by the U.S. â€œmainstreamâ€ press. Only Harperâ€™s Magazine gave it full play along with those wonderful internet sites (Buzzflash, Guerrilla News, WorkingForChange, CommonDreams, Alternet and more ) that cussedly insist on printing news from abroad not approved by the Powers That Be.

Bless them. They, Project Censored, and Harperâ€™s, have my deepest thanks for bringing my words back home.

Want to see the television youâ€™re not supposed to see? The British Broadcasting Corporation has graciously kept my reports available as Internet video archives. Go to www.GregPalast.com and click on the â€œWatch BBCâ€ buttons for the stories effectively censored by the U.S. news lords and the Bush Administrationâ€™s chorus of journalist castrati.

Finally, I must give special thanks to our teamâ€™s special investigator on Iraq, Leni von Eckardt, to brilliant BBC producer Meirion Jones, to the stalwart editors of Harperâ€™s Magazine who withstood legal threats to publish the story, and to TomPaine.com, which has always provided a refuge for the best investigative reporting American newspapers wonâ€™t print.

#9 Iranâ€™s New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency

Source:

GlobalResearch.ca, October 27

Title: â€œIran Next U.S. Targetâ€

Author: William Clark

Faculty Evaluator: Phil Beard, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Brian Miller

The U.S. media tells us that Iran may be the next target of U.S. aggression. The anticipated excuse is Iranâ€™s alleged nuclear weapons program. William Clark tells us that economic reasons may have more to do with U.S. concerns over Iran than any weapons of mass destruction.

In mid-2003 Iran broke from tradition and began accepting eurodollars as payment for its oil exports from its E.U. and Asian customers. Saddam Hussein attempted a similar bold step back in 2000 and was met with a devastating reaction from the U.S. Iraq now has no choice about using U.S. dollars for oil sales (Censored 2004 #19). However, Iraq’s plan to open an international oil exchange market for trading oil in the euro currency is a much larger threat to U.S. dollar supremacy than Iraqâ€™s switch to euros.

While the dollar is still the standard currency for trading international oil sales, in 2006 Iran intends to set up an oil exchange (or bourse) that would facilitate global trading of oil between industrialized and developing countries by pricing sales in the euro, or â€œpetroeuro.â€ To this end, they are creating a euro-denominated Internet-based oil exchange system for global oil sales. This is a direct challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy in the global oil market. It is widely speculated that the U.S. dollar has been inflated for some time now because of the monopoly position of â€œpetrodollarsâ€ in oil trades. With the level of national debt, the value of the dollar has been held artificially high compared to other currencies.

The vast majority of the worldâ€™s oil is traded on the New York NYMEX (Mercantile Exchange) and the London IPE (International Petroleum Exchange), and, as mentioned by Clark, both exchanges are owned by U.S. corporations. Both of these oil exchanges transact oil trades in U.S. currency. Iranâ€™s plan to create a new oil exchange would facilitate trading oil on the world market in euros. The euro has become a somewhat stronger and more stable trading medium than the U.S. dollar in recent years. Perhaps this is why Russia, Venezuela, and some members of OPEC have expressed interest in moving towards a petroeuro system for oil transactions. Without a doubt, a successful Iranian oil bourse may create momentum for other industrialized countries to stop exchanging their own currencies for petrodollars in order to buy oil. A shift away from U.S. dollars to euros in the oil market would cause the demand for petrodollars to drop, perhaps causing the value of the dollar to plummet. A precipitous drop in the value of the U.S. dollar would undermine the U.S. position as a world economic leader.

China is a major exporter to the United States, and its trade surplus with the U.S. means that China has become the worldâ€™s second largest holder of U.S. currency reserves (Japan is the largest holder with $800 billion, and China holds over $600 billion in T-bills). China would lose enormously if they were still holding vast amounts of U.S. currency when the dollar collapsed and assumed a more realistic value. Maintaining the U.S. as a market for their goods is a pre-eminent goal of Chinese financial policy, but they are increasingly dependent on Iran for their vital oil and gas imports. The Chinese government is careful to maintain the value of the yuan linked with the U.S. dollar (8.28 yuan to 1 dollar). This artificial linking makes them, effectively, one currency. But the Chinese government has indicated interest in de-linking the dollar-yuan arrangement, which could result in an immediate fall in the dollar. More worrisome is the potentiality of China to abandon its ongoing prolific purchase of U.S. Treasuries/debtâ€”should they become displeased with U.S. policies towards Iran.

Unstable situations cannot be expected to remain static. It is reasonable to expect that the Chinese are hedging their bets. It is unreasonable to expect that they plan to be left holding devalued dollars after a sudden decline in their value. It is possible that the artificial situation could continue for some time, but this will be due largely to the fact that the Chinese want it that way. Regardless, China seems to be in the process of unloading some of its U.S. dollar reserves in the world market to purchase oil reserves, and most recently attempted to buy Unocal, a California-based oil company.

The irony is that apparent U.S. plans to invade Iran put pressure on the Chinese to abandon their support of the dollar. Clark warns that â€œa unilateral U.S. military strike on Iran would further isolate the U.S. government, and it is conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other industrialized nations to abandon the dollar en masse.â€ Perhaps the U.S. planners think that they can corner the market in oil militarily. But from Clark’s point of view, â€œa U.S. intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to mention potential adverse effects on the U.S. economy.â€ The more likely outcome of an Iran invasion would be that, just as in Iraq, Iranian oil exports would dry up, regardless of what currency they are denominated in, and China would be compelled to abandon the dollar and buy oil from Russiaâ€”likely in euros. The conclusion is that U.S. leaders seem to have no idea what they are doing. Clark points out that, â€œWorld oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global depression.â€

Update by William Clark: Following the completion of my essay in October 2004, three important stories appeared that dramatically raised the geopolitical stakes for the Bush Administration. First, on October 28, 2004, Iran and China signed a huge oil and gas trade agreement (valued between $70 and $100 billion dollars.)1 It should also be noted that China currently receives 13 percent of its oil imports from Iran. The Chinese government effectively drew a â€œline in the sandâ€ around Iran when it signed this huge oil and gas deal. Despite desires by U.S. elites to enforce petrodollar hegemony by force, the geopolitical risks of a U.S. attack on Iranâ€™s nuclear facilities would surely create a serious crisis between Washington and Beijing.

An article that addressed some of the strategic risks appeared in the December 2004 edition of the Atlantic Monthly.2 This story by James Fallows outlined the military war games against Iran that were conducted during the summer and autumn of 2004.These war-gaming sessions were led by Colonel Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who for more than two decades ran war games at the National War College and other military institutions. Each scenario led to a dangerous escalation in both Iran and Iraq. Indeed, Col. Gardiner summarized the war games with the following conclusion, â€œAfter all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.â€3

The third and final news item that revealed the Bush Administrationâ€™s intent to attack Iran was provided by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. The January 2005 issue of The New Yorker (â€œThe Coming Warsâ€) included interviews with high-level U.S. intelligence sources who repeatedly told Hersh that Iran was indeed the next strategic target.4 However, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China will likely veto any U.S. resolution calling for military action against Iran. A unilateral military strike on Iran would isolate the U.S. government in the eyes of the world community, and it is conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other industrialized nations to abandon the dollar in droves. I refer to this in my book as the â€œrogue nation hypothesis.â€

While central bankers throughout the world community would be extremely reluctant to â€œdump the dollar,â€ the reasons for any such drastic reaction are likely straightforward from their perspectiveâ€”the global community is dependent on the oil and gas energy supplies found in the Persian Gulf. Numerous oil geologists are warning that global oil production is now running â€œflat out.â€ Hence, any such efforts by the international community that resulted in a dollar currency crisis would be undertakenâ€”not to cripple the U.S. dollar and economy as punishment towards the American people per seâ€”but rather to thwart further unilateral warfare and its potentially destructive effects on the critical oil production and shipping infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. Barring a U.S. attack, it appears imminent that Iranâ€™s euro-denominated oil bourse will open in March, 2006.5 Logically, the most appropriate U.S. strategy is compromise with the E.U. and OPEC towards a dual-currency system for international oil trades.

For additional information: Readers interested in learning more about the dollar/euro oil currency conflict and the upcoming geological phenomenon referred to as Peak Oil can read William Clarkâ€™s new book, Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar. Available from New Society Publishers: www.newsociety.com, www.amazon.com or from your local book store.

NOTES

1. â€œChina, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal,â€ China Daily, October 31, 2004. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm.

2. James Fallows, â€œWill Iran be Next?,â€ Atlantic Monthly, December 2004, pgs. 97-110.

3. James Fallows, ibid.

4. Seymour Hersh, â€œThe Coming Wars,â€ The New Yorker, January 24th-31st issue, 2005, pgs. 40-47. Posted online January 17, 2005. Online: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

5. â€œOil bourse closer to reality,â€ IranMania.com, December 28, 2004. Online: http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?ArchiveNews=Yes&NewsCode=28176&NewsKind=BusinessEconomy.

#10 Mountaintop Removal Threatens Ecosystem and Economy

Source:

Earthfirst! Nov-Dec 2004

Title: â€œSee You in the Mountains: Katuah Earth First! Confronts Mountaintop Removalâ€

Author: John Conner

Faculty Evaluator: Ervand Peterson, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Angela Sciortino

Mountaintop removal is a new form of coal mining in which companies dynamite the tops of mountains to collect the coal underneath. Multiple peaks are blown off and dumped onto highland watersheds, destroying entire mountain ranges. More than 1,000 miles of streams have been destroyed by this practice in West Virginia alone. Mountain top removal endangers and destroys entire communities with massive sediment dams and non-stop explosions.

According to Fred Mooney, an active member of the Mountain Faction of Katuah Earth First!, â€œMTR is an ecocidal mining practice in which greedy coal companies use millions of pounds of dynamite a day (three million pounds a day in the southwest Virginia alone) to blow up entire mountain ranges in order to extract a small amount of coal.â€ He goes on to say that â€œThen as if that wasnâ€™t bad enough, they dump the waste into valleys and riverbeds. The combination of these elements effectively kills everything in the ecosystems.â€

Most states are responsible for permitting and regulating mining operations under the Surface Mining Control Act. Now MTR is trying to break into Tennessee, specifically Zeb Mountain in the northeast. Because Tennessee did such a poor job in the â€™70s, the state renounced control, and all mining is now regulated under the federal Office of Surface Mining. This makes Tennessee unique because activists have recourse in the federal courts to stop mountaintop removal.

The coal industry has coined many less menacing names for mountaintop removal, such as cross range mining, surface mining and others. But regardless of the euphemism, MTR remains among the most pernicious forms of mining ever conceived. Blasting mountain tops with dynamite is cheaper than hiring miners who belong to a union. More than 40,000 have been lost to MTR in West Virginia alone.

Ninety-three new coal plants are being planned for construction throughout the U.S. Demand for coal will increase as these new facilities are completed. Oil is starting to run out and there are no concrete plans for a transition to renewable resources such as wind and solar energy. Coal companies therefore will be well-positioned to capitalize on their growing market. Katuah Earth First! (KEF!) is one of several groups resisting MTR.

The coal taken from Zeb Mountain is being burned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, and continues to cause environmental damage. KEF! wants to raise awareness and direct attention to the perpetratorsâ€”TVA and the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). KEF! emphasized that â€œthe issue of mountain top removal is not just a local one. It is intertwined with many global issues such as corporate domination of communities, the homogenization of local cultures and the over consumption of our wasteful society.â€

Four federal agencies that review applications for coal mines have entered an agreement that would give state governments an option that could speed up the process. The Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and Office of Surface Mining said that the agreement was intended to streamline the procedures companies go through when applying for permits to start surface coal mines, including those that remove entire mountaintops to unearth coal.1

Environmental groups are beginning to challenge these policies in federal district court. The current program allows the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a general permit for a category of activities under the Clean Water Act if they â€œwill cause only minimal adverse environmental effectsâ€ according to federal regulation. Coal companies then also must seek individual â€œauthorizationsâ€ from the Corps for the projects for which they have received a general permit.2

According to the Bush Administration, the federal judge who blocked the streamline permitting of new mountaintop removal coal mines has overstepped his authority. Lawyers for the Army Corps of Engineers asked a federal appeals court to overturn the July 2004 ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin. Industry lawyers criticized Goodwinâ€™s decision as the â€œlatest unwarranted and impermissible dismantlingâ€ of mountaintop removal regulations by federal judges in Southern West Virginia.3

Update by John Conner: The destructions of highland watersheds are a crime against the very future. The Appalachian Mountains are some of the most diverse in the world. Areas incredibly rich in biodiversity are being turned into the biological equivalent of parking lots. It is the final solution for 200 million-year-old mountains. Since dynamite is cheaper than people, MTR has broken the back of the mining unions in West Virginia, massive sediment dams threaten to bury entire communities, water tables are destroyed, and wells dry up. It is a form of cultural genocide driving a mountain people from their hillsâ€”then destroying the hills themselves.

There has been a direct impact on Marsh Fork Elementary, where a massive sediment dam looms above the elementary school. Over 18 people have been arrested for non-violent civil disobedience trying to protect the children of that school. Additionally, Mountain Justice Summer has begun a campaign modeled on Redwood and Mississippi Summers, where folks from all over North America have come to our region to help us defend our mountains.

When the Martin County coal impoundment burst, it released more than 20 times the waste volume into a community than the Exxon Valdez spillâ€”yet the coal industry successfully suppressed the story. The coal industry is incredibly powerful, and there exists a glass ceiling on how far our stories go. The story of the folks committing civil disobedience for the first time in history in West Virginia to resist Mountain Top Removal was placed on the APâ€”but virtually no outlets outside of West Virginia picked it up.

People can get more information on this issue at mountainjusticesummer.org.

This site has everythingâ€”links, pictures, and state-by-state activities. From there you can sign yourself up for our electronic newsletter and find out what is going on in all the states under attack by Mountain Top Removal.

NOTES

1. Inside Energy with Federal lands, February 7, 2005,â€Environmentalists sue to block process for Ky. Mountaintop mining operations.â€

2. Associated Press, February 11, 2005, â€œFederal agencies will work together to speed up mining permits.â€

3. Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), March 22, 2005, Tuesday, â€œBush, Industry seek reversal of mining ruling.â€

#11 Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights

Sources:

Asheville Global Report (British Medical Journal),No. 284, June 24-30, 2004

Title: â€œBush Plans To Screen Whole U.S. Population For Mental Illnessâ€

Author: Jeanne Lenzer

http://www.agrnews.org/issues/284/#2

Truth News, September 13,2004

Title: â€œForcing Kids Into a Mental Health Ghettoâ€

Congressman Ron Paul

http://www.truthnews.net/world/2004090078.htm

Faculty Evaluator: David Van Nuys Ph.D.

Student Researchers: John Ferritto, Matt Johnson

In April of 2002, President Bush appointed a 22 member commission called the Presidentâ€™s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in order to â€œidentify policies that could be implemented by Federal, State and local governments to maximize the utility of existing resources, improve coordination of treatments and services, and promote successful community integration for adults with a serious mental illness and children with a serious emotional disturbance.â€1 Members of this commission include physicians in the mental health field and at least one (Robert N. Postlethwait) former employee of pharmaceutical giant Ely Lilly and Co.

In July of 2003 the commission published the results of their study. They found that mental health disorders often go undiagnosed and recommended to the President that there should be more comprehensive screening for mental illnesses for people of all ages, including pre-school age children. In accordance with their findings, the commission recommended that schools were in a â€œkey positionâ€ to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adult employees of our nationâ€™s schools.2

The commission also recommended linking the screenings with treatment and support. They recommended using the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a model treatment system.3 TMAP, which was implemented in Texasâ€™ publicly funded mental health care system while George W. Bush was governor of Texas,4 is a disease management program that aids physicians in prescribing drugs to patients based on clinical history, background, symptoms, and previous results. It was the first program in the United States aimed at establishing medication guidelines for treating mental health illnesses.5 Basically, it is an algorithm that recommends specific drugs which should be used to treat specific diseases. Funding for TMAP was provided by a Robert Wood-Johnson Grant as well as several major drug companies. The project began in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from pharmaceutical companies, the University of Texas, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas.6

Critics of mental health screening and TMAP claim that it is a payoff to Pharmaceutical companies. Many cite Allen Jones, a former employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General. He was fired when he revealed that many key officials who have influence over the medication plan in his state received monetary perks and benefits from pharmaceutical companies, which benefited from their drugs being in the medication algorithm. TMAP also promotes the use of newer, more expensive anti-psychotic drugs. Results of studies conducted in the United States and Great Britain found that using the older, more established anti-psychotic drugs as a front line treatment rather than the newer experimental drugs makes more sense. Under TMAP, the Ely Lilly drug olanzapine, a new atypical antipsychotic drug, is used as a first line treatment rather than a more typical anti-psychotic medication. Perhaps it is because Ely Lilly has several ties to the Bush family, where George Bush Sr. was a member of the board of directors. George W. Bush also appointed Ely Lilly C.E.O. Sidney Taurel to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Of Ely Lillyâ€™s $1.6 million political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Republicans and George W. Bush.7

In November of 2004, Congress appropriated $20 million8 to implement the findings of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. This would include mandatory screening by schools for mental health illnesses. Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas introduced an amendment to the appropriations bills which would withhold funding for mandatory mental health screenings and require parental consent and notification. His amendment, however, was voted down by a wide margin (95-315 in the House of Representatives).9 Paul, a doctor and long-time member of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) states, â€œAt issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents.â€ Paul says the allegation â€œthat we have a nation of children with undiagnosed mental disorders crying out for treatment is patently false,â€ and warns that mental health screening could be used to label children whose attitudes, religious beliefs, and political views conflict with established doctrine. Paul further warns that an obvious major beneficiary of this legislation is the pharmaceutical industry. The AAPS has decried this legislation, which they say will lead to mandatory psychological testing of every child in America without parental consent, and â€œheap even more coercive pressure on parents to medicate children with potentially dangerous side effects.â€

Update by Jeanne Lenzer: Whether itâ€™s the pills we take or the oil we use, it would be reassuring to know that the information used to develop new medicines or to utilize natural resources wisely is based on scienceâ€”not corporate spin.

But blandishments from Big Pharma to politicians and doctors have a profound effect on health care in the U.S., making medical research closer to propaganda than science at times.

One way drug companies, in collusion with doctors, increase their market share is to expand the definition of diseases. When diagnostic criteria were liberalized for attention deficit disorder in 1991, the number of children diagnosed jumped by about 60 percent.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) acknowledged in the July 2004 issue of Advocacy News that, â€œThe BMJ story has gained some traction in derivative reports on the Internet.â€ But, they boasted, â€œmainstream media have not touched the story, in part thanks to APAâ€™s work, for which the [Bush] Administration is appreciative.â€10

The APAâ€™s boast is curious. The article was the most downloaded article in the history of the BMJ. It clearly struck a nerve with a public wary of doctors and politicians whose pockets are lined with drug company money.

Given the interest in the BMJ story, it would seem that the APA, instead of attempting to keep the story out of the mainstream media, would be anxious to counter the widely circulated statements in the article. It would also seem that the mainstream press could provide the Administration and the APA the best possible vehicle to counter these supposed factual errors in the BMJ article.

But, the facts might prove difficult to square with the public. More than one in every 100 toddlers and preschoolers in the United States are on powerful psychiatric drugs, such as Ritalin and Prozac, according to a study published in the February 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Joseph T. Coyle, M.D., wrote in an accompanying editorial, â€œIt appears that behaviorally disturbed children are now increasingly subjected to quick and inexpensive pharmacologic fixes, as opposed to informed mutimodal therapy.â€ He concluded, â€œThese disturbing prescription practices suggest a growing crisis in mental health services to children and demand more thorough investigation.â€

But instead of issuing warnings about overmedication or inappropriate prescribing, the experts on the New Freedom Commission warn ominously that too few children are receiving treatment for mental illness. They cite escalating numbers of toddlers expelled from daycare as evidence of potentially serious psychological problemsâ€”problems to be diagnosed and cured with mental health screening and pills. Social and economic reasons for the rise in kiddie expulsions are left unexamined.

As bad as this is for those put on drugs and labeled â€œmentally ill,â€ the far bigger concern is the creation of a disease for every drug, a situation made possible by the hand-in-glove relationship between industry and the government.

NOTES

1. http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/.

2. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

3. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

4. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

5. http://www.news-medical.net/?id=3084.

6. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

7. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

8. http://www.truthnews.net/world/2004090078.htm.

9. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41606.

10. See Medicating Aliah: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/medicating_ aliah.html.

Alliance for Human Research Protection â€œhttp://www.ahrp.orgâ€ www.ahrp.org http://www.psych.org/join_apa/mb/newsletters/advocacy/AdvNewsJuly2004.htm#21.

#12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators

Sources:

Mother Jones, November/December 2004

Title: â€œDirty Warriors: How South African Hitmen, Serbian Paramilitaries, and Other Human Rights Violators Became Guns for Hire for Military Contractors in Iraqâ€

Author: Barry Yeoman

www.corpwatch.org, March 7, 2005

Title: â€œIntelligence, Inc.â€

Author: Pratap Chatterjee

www.law.com, May 11, 2004

Title: â€œUntested Law Key in Iraqi Abuse Scandalâ€

Author: Jonathan Groner

Faculty Evaluator: Rick Williams, JD

Student Researcher: Danielle Hallstein

The United States government is contracting private firms to recruit, hire, and train civilians to perform duties normally done by military personnel. These corporate employees are sent to fill empty positions as prison guards, military police, and interrogators at United States military bases worldwide, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba. Independent of the United States military, these employees are not held accountable by military law. Many of the recruits are citizens with prior experience as policemen or soldiers. However, a number of the employees have backgrounds as mercenaries and soldiers who fought for repressive regimes throughout the world, such as in South Africa, Chile, and Yugoslavia. Employees from some of these firms have recently been indicated in prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The Pentagon claims that it can no longer fight the war on terror without enlisting the help of private contractors. The reason for this inability is that the number of active troops in the United States military has dropped from 2.1 million to 1.4 million since the end of the Cold War. This puts a lot of pressure on companies to fill positions as quickly as possible. One negative consequence of this rushed hiring is the lack of in-depth background checks on applicants. Many recruits have been implicated in past human rights violations, including torture and killing. One of these ex-soldier-turned-United States employees was Gary Branfield, who was killed in a firefight with Iraqi soldiers in the spring of 2004. In the 1980s he was a covert operations specialist working for the South African apartheid government. Branfieldâ€™s mission was to track down and assassinate members of the African National Congress living outside of South Africa. Mysteriously, this information failed to appear during background checks performed by Branfieldâ€™s employer, Hart Group. Hart Group has been hired by the United States to guard Iraqi energy facilities and to protect the engineers rebuilding Iraqâ€™s electricity network. Retired justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa Richard Goldstone comments, â€œThe mercenaries weâ€™re talking about worked for security forces that were synonymous with murder and torture.â€

The Titan Corporation, which claims to provide â€œcomprehensive information and communications products, solutions, and services for National Securityâ€ (www.corpwatch.org), has a contract with the U.S. to supply translators for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. A 2004 military investigation into prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib concluded that â€œTitan employees actively participated in detainee abuse, including assault and possibly rapeâ€ (Mother Jones, 2004). However, the only legal action taken against Titan as of yet is in the U.S. district court for the Southern district of California, where the Abu Ghraib prisoners have filed a class action suit against the employees of Titan. Employees of California Analysis Center Incorporated (CACI) were also found to have participated in the abuse. Plaintiffs in this suit are demanding a jury trial, but the process is moving slowly. Jeffrey Ellefante, executive vice president at CACI, says that CACI has yet to be informed of the specific accusations against its employees. Oddly enough, the soldiers implicated in the abuse have already been court martialed under the Military Code of Conduct.

So why is there a discrepancy between the punishment of soldiers and that of independent employees for the same crime? The answer is legal ramifications. While United States military personnel are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, independent contractors working through the Pentagon as civilians are not. Because of this, Congress passed the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) in 2000 to enable the prosecution of civilians â€œemployed by or accompanying U.S. armed forcesâ€ (www.law.com). Unfortunately, MEJA can only be applied to civilian employees who are contracted through the Department of Defense (DOD), and to crimes committed overseas that would merit a minimum one-year sentence under Federal law. Currently there is an investigation into the deaths of Iraqi prisoners after having been questioned by private interrogators hired by the CIA. If found guilty, these interrogators may be let off on a technicality because they work for the CIA, not the DOD, like MEJA requires.

This begs the question, under whose jurisdiction do these crimes fall? In an attempt to answer this, the Defense Department proposed new regulation earlier this year that â€œwould require DOD contractors to make sure their employees comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice where applicableâ€ (www.law.com.) Debate over this proposal will open on May 24, 2005. Critic Daniel Guttman, fellow at John Hopkins University, questions the â€œwhere applicableâ€ phrase saying, â€œit says the Uniform Code applies where applicable, but when is that?…They seem to be making policy on the runâ€ (www.law.com). As for now, the Pentagon claims that it, â€œis not in the business of policing contractorsâ€™ hiring practices,â€ therefore it may take many more cases like Abu Ghraib before the U.S. government steps in to regulate the unlimited power that these private contractors are brandishing.

Update by Barry Yeoman: This was the first major article to systemically link the issues of military privatization with human rights abuses. We explained how the recent growth of a private security industry, fueled by the invasion of Iraq, necessitated the hiring of former soldiers and police officers trained and experienced in assassination and torture in formerly repressive countries.

Numerous radio stations have interviewed me about this article. Among the radio shows are â€œPolitical Thought,â€ WMAR, Poughkeepsie NY; â€œThe Morning Zone,â€ KGAB, Cheyenne WY; and Ian Mastersâ€™ Background Briefing, KPFK-FM, Los Angeles CA. The last of these interviews can be accessed at http://www.barryyeoman.com/biography.html.

A column called â€œCoalition of Willing is Dwindlingâ€ in the Paradise Post (CA) quoted from it. I have done extensive interviews with a European television network, which is producing a documentary on the subject.

Amnesty International has a petition drive seeking accountability for private contractors at Abu Ghraib: http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/action/ index.asp?step=2&item=10897.

There are several excellent resources on the growth of this industry: Peter Singerâ€™s book â€œCorporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industryâ€ (Cornell University Press, 2003) and the Center for Public Integrityâ€™s 11-part investigation â€œMaking a Killing: The Business of Warâ€ http://www. publicintegrity.org/bow/ are but a few.

#13 Rich Countries Fail to Live up to Global Pledges

Sources:

Oxfam Press Release, December 6, 2004

Title: â€œPoor Are Paying the Price of Rich Countriesâ€™ Failureâ€

Author: Caroline Green

http://www.oxfam.org/eng/pr041206_MDG.htm

InterPress Service, OneWorld U.S., December 6, 2004

Title: â€œ45 Million Children to Die in Next Decade Due to Rich Countriesâ€™ Miserlinessâ€

Author: Jim Lobe

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/99063/1/

Faculty Evaluator: Maureen Buckley, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Paige Dumont

Forty-five million children will needlessly die between now and the year 2015, reveals the report by Oxfam, â€œPoor Are Paying the Price of Rich Countriesâ€™ Failure.â€ According to this report, 97 million more children will be denied access to an education by the year 2015 and 53 million more people will lack proper sanitation facilities. Ending poverty will require assistance on many levels. For third world countries, economic growth is undermined by unfair trade rules. Without finance and support, these countries will not be able to take advantage of global trade, investment opportunities, or protect basic human rights.

Wealthy countries such as the U.S., Germany, Japan, and the UK have promised to provide a very small fraction of their wealth to third world countries. By offering .7 percent of their gross national income, they could reduce poverty and end the burden of debt that makes low income countries pay up to $100 million per day to creditors. In the years 1960-65, wealthy countries spent on average 0.48 percent of their combined national incomes on official development assistance but by the year 2003 the proportion had dropped to 0.24 percent. Vital poverty-reduction programs are failing for the lack of finance. Cambodia and Tanzania are among the poorest countries in the world, yet they will require at least double the level of external financing that they currently receive if they are to achieve their poverty-reduction targets.

Global initiatives to enable poor countries to develop provisional education and combat HIV/AIDS are starved of cash. Despite the fact that HIV infection rates are rising in sub-Saharan Africa, the global fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria is assured of only one quarter of the funds that it needs for 2005. Poor countries continue to spend more paying back their creditors than they do on essential public services. Low-income countries paid $39 billion in debt payments and interest in 2003, while they received only $27 billion in aid.

Wealthy countries can easily afford to deliver the necessary aid and debt relief. For wealthy countries such as the U.S. to spend merely 0.7 percent of gross national income on humanitarian aid is equal to one-fifth of its expenditure on defense and one half of what it spends on domestic farm subsidies. The U.S., at just 0.14 percent, is the least generous provider of aid in proportion to national income of any developed country. By comparison, Norway is the most generous provider at 0.92 percent. The U.S. is spending more than twice as much on the war in Iraq as it would cost to increase its aid budget to 0.7 percent, and six times more on its military program. Canceling the debts of the 32 poorest countries would be small change for the wealthy nations.

Millions of children are now in school in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia, thanks to money provided by foreign aid and debt relief. Because of these relief funds, Ugandans no longer have to pay for basic health care. A policy was implemented that resulted in an increase of 50 to 100 percent in attendance at Ugandan health clinics and doubled the rate on immunities. History also shows that aid has been necessary in eradicating global diseases as well as rebuilding countries devastated by war.

The wealthiest of nations have continuously signed international statements pledging to increase foreign aid to 0.7 percent of their gross national income in order to eliminate the crippling debts of third world countries. Repeatedly, they have broken their promises.

#14 Corporations Win Big on Tort Reform, Justice Suffers

Sources:

Dollars and Sense, Issue #252, March/April 2004

Title: â€œSupremes Limit Punitive Damagesâ€

Author: Jamie Court

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/0304court.html

Democracy now! Feb 4, 2005

Title: â€œTort reform: The Big Payoff for Corporations, Curbing the Lawsuits that Hold Them Accountableâ€

Author: Amy Goodman et al (Juan Gonzalez interview with Joanne Doroshow)

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/04/1537236

Faculty Evaluator: Perry Marker, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Chris Bui

On February 18, 2005, President Bush signed into law the most sweeping federal tort reform measure in more than a decade. The Class Action Fairness Act puts into effect a tort reform that will take away peopleâ€™s access to the courts, undermining the constitutional right to trial by jury. These reforms weaken consumer and worker protections, denying due process of law in civil cases to all but the wealthiest in our society. The act will move many civil lawsuits from state to federal courts in an attempt to end so-called â€œforum shoppingâ€ by trial lawyers seeking districts most hospitable to multi-party suits against companies.

What has been lost in all the partisan rhetoric is the fact that class action suits are most often lawsuits brought by people who have been hurt by HMO abuses, civil rights violations, or workplace injuries and violations. These are the suits that allow for compensation when large numbers of people are hurt by companies in the pursuit of profit. Although, at times, individual injuries may be relatively small, they represent a pattern of behavior on the part of the defendant. While legal recourse may not be available on an individual level, by joining together at the state level, people have been able to affect responsible change in the conduct of corporations. Federal courts are not expert in these cases, are already overburdened, and are much smaller than state courts. Critics claim that the real intention of this law is to make sure these cases get buried quickly and are ultimately dismissed.

Attached to this bill is a mass tort section that will severely restrict large class action suits against pharmaceutical companies and paves the way for medical malpractice reform, effectively immunizing abusive or negligent corporations from liability.

The reform sets a cap of $250,000 per lawsuit while shielding drug companies from responsibility for punitive damages and lawsuits where the drug had been approved by the FDA. One woman who was taking the FDA approved drug Vioxx, for example, had a stroke and continued taking the drug because she wasnâ€™t warned of its major side effectâ€”stroke. She went on to have a second stroke. The new reform would limit her settlement to $250,000 for a lifetime of disabilities. Under this new legislation corporations will not be held accountable for their faulty products and will only be punished with a slap on the wrist in terms of financial payment.

Update by Jamie Court: The Supreme Court ruling in Campbell seems to be an eye-glazing experience for the mainstream media. For example, the press ignored the significance of the ruling in covering the Congressional debate over 2005 legislation signed into law by President Bush that created new hurdles to class action lawsuits. Given the Campbell rulingâ€™s limits, the new class action restrictions give a virtual guarantee to banks, insurers, drug makers, and other big industries that no matter how egregious their conduct, the penalty will always be financially manageable. Indeed if the media had taken more notice of the ruling, President Bushâ€™s campaign plank of limiting lawsuits of all kind would be seen in a far different light.

Read the State Farm v. Campbell case at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/.

#15 Conservative Plan to Override Academic Freedom in the Classroom

Source: The Nation

Title: â€œThe New PCâ€

Author: Russell Jacoby

Date of Publication: April 4, 2005

Student Researchers: Vanessa Dern, Theodora Ruhs

For centuries, the higher education classroom has been a haven for honest debate and protected academic freedom. The college professor, one of the last â€œrugged individualists,â€ had the freedom to teach a given subject in his or her own manner, as he or she saw it. The interpretation of the subject matter was the professors own, not a representation of a â€œliberalâ€ or â€œconservativeâ€ dogma.

The halls of academia have included a wide variety of perspectives, from Newt Gingrich and William F. Buckley Jr. to Noam Chomsky and Albert Einstein.

In his article â€œThe New PC,â€ Russell Jacoby addresses a new extremist conservative movement to bring what they say is â€œpolitical balanceâ€ to higher education. These conservatives see academia as a hotbed of liberal activity that is working to indoctrinate Americaâ€™s youth with leftwing ideology, citing studies that conclude that faculty of most universities are overwhelmingly liberal. They fear that these liberal faculty members are abusing students who profess conservative belief systems, and to remedy this they are pushing for regulation of the academic world to monitor professorsâ€™ _expression of theory and opinion.

At the forefront of this movement is David Horowitz and his academic watchdog organization, Students for Academic Freedom (SAF). SAF counsels its student members that, when they come across an â€˜abuseâ€™ like controversial material in a course, they are to write down the date, class and name of the professor. They are advised to accumulate a list of incidents or quotes, obtain witnesses, and lodge a complaint. Many in the academic world see these actions as a new McCarthy-ismâ€”an effort to sniff out those who do not subscribe to the â€˜dominantâ€™ belief structure of the nation.

Beyond his student watch group, Horowitz is also championing a â€œStudent Bill of Rights.â€ Ironically, this bill claims to protect academic freedom. It proposes some ideas that are commonsense, such as, â€œstudents will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.â€1 But Jacoby warns that academic freedoms extended to students easily turn into the end of freedom for teachers. In Horowitzâ€™s society of rights, students would have the right to hear all sides of all subjects all the time. Principle #4 of Horowitzâ€™s academic bill of rights states that curricula and reading lists â€œshould reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge,â€ and provide â€œstudents with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate.â€ The bill does not, however, distinguish when or where dissenting viewpoints are, or are not, appropriate.

The SAF website has a section for students to post â€˜abusesâ€™ and complaints about their academic experiences. Perusing these postings, Jacoby found one student reporting an â€˜abuseâ€™ in an introductory Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution class, â€œwhere military approaches were derided. The student complained that â€˜the only studying of conflict resolution that we did was to enforce the idea that non-violent means were the only legitimate sources of self-defense.â€ Jacoby points out the irony, â€œpresumably the professor of â€˜peace studiesâ€™ should be ordered to give equal time to â€˜war studies.â€™ By this principle, should the United States Army War College be required to teach pacifism?â€ From this point the movement seems to be rendered ridiculous.

Several authors, including Jacoby, point out the hypocrisy of Horowitzâ€™s focus on the humanities and education in general. The conservatives who feel such an urgency to protect the freedoms of conservative students in the humanities and to balance out the ratio of liberal to conservative faculty are in no rush to sort out the inequalities in business schools where the trend often appears to be the opposite, with the liberals in the minority. And as Jacoby points out, â€œof course, they do not address such imbalances in the police force, Pentagon, FBI, CIA, and other government outfits where the stakes seem far higher and where, presumably, followers of Michael Moore are short in supply.â€

Despite the apparent circus, this movement poses a real threat to the academic world. Whether or not the Student Bill of Rights passes in any of the state legislatures, where it stands as of Spring 2005, is not as important as how it influences public opinion. Already this movement has led to attacks and firings of a number of professors for their left leaning viewpoints. Ward Churchill, from the University of Colorado, was threatened with termination for using the term â€œlittle Eichmannsâ€ to describe World Trade Center workers.2 Oneida Mernato, a political science professor at Metropolitan State College of Denver, was also harassed for her liberal bias in class.3 And more recently, self-proclaimed anarchist David Graeber was fired, he believes, for his personal political activity, and for standing up for a student organizer who he felt was being treated unfairly.4,5

Horowitz also aims to affect other areas of government involvement in academia, specifically funding. Proclaiming that academics are â€œa privileged elite that work between six to nine hours a week, eight months a year for an annual salary of about $150,000 a year,â€6 Horowitz further claims that he is â€œdedicated to exposing the cowards who run our universities to the alumni and taxpayers who pay their salaries. State Senator Larry Mumper argues, â€œWhy should we, as fairly moderate to conservative legislators, continue to support universities that turn out students who rail against the very policies that their parents voted us in for?â€7

NOTES

1. Students for Academic Freedom. â€œThe Student Bill of Rights.â€ http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/essays/sbor.html.

2. ibid.

3. ibid.

4. http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0523,interview,64691,24.html.

5. â€œEarly Exitâ€ http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/05/18/yale.

6. Mattson, Kevin.

7. Mattson. Kevin.

#16 U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada

Sources:

Centre for Research on Globalisation, November 23, 2004

Title: â€œIs the Annexation of Canada Part of Bushâ€™s Military Agenda?â€

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html

Canadian Dimension, Jan/Feb 2005, Winnipeg: Vol.39, Iss.1; pg. 12

Title: â€œCanadaâ€™s Chance to Keep Space for Peaceâ€

Author: Bruce K. Gagnon

space4peace.org

Faculty Evaluator: Sherril Jaffe, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Christina Reski

The U.S. and Canada have been sharing national information since the creation of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) in 1958. This bi-national agreement to provide aerospace warning and control for North America is scheduled to expire in May 2006. In preparation for the renewal of this contract, the U.S. and Canadian commanders are proposing to expand the integration of the two countries, including cooperation in the â€œStar Warsâ€ program, cross-national integration of military command structures, immigration, law enforcement, and intelligence gathering and sharing under the new title of NORTHCOM, U.S. Northern Command.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to join NORTHCOM. To circumvent his decision, this â€œillusive transitional militaryâ€ (aka NORAD/NORTHCOM) formed an interim military authority in December 2002, called the Bi-National Planning Group (BPG.) The command structure is fully integrated between NORAD, NORTHCOM and the BPG. The BPG is neither accountable to the U.S. Congress nor the Canadian House of Commons. The BPG is also scheduled to expire in May 2006. Hence, the push for Canada to join NORTHCOM.

Donald Rumsfeld said that U.S. Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. NORTHCOMâ€™s jurisdiction, outlined by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), includes all of Canada, Mexico, parts of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles of the Mexican, U.S. and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Artic.

Under NORTHCOM, Canadaâ€™s military command structures would be subordinated to those of the Pentagon and the DoD. In December 2001, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the â€œCanada-U.S. Smart Border Declaration.â€ This agreement essentially hands over confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents to the U.S. Department of Homeland. It also provides U.S. authorities with access to tax records of Canadians. The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, currently debated in the U.S. Senate, centers on a so-called â€˜Information Sharing Networkâ€™ to coordinate data from â€˜all available sources.â€™â€

The BPG is the interim military for NORTHCOM. Part of the BPGâ€™s agenda is the Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) which supports the ongoing militarization of the civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the U.S. and Canada. Military commanders would â€œprovide bi-national military assistance to civil authorities.â€ The U.S. military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to coast, extending from the St. Laurence Valley to the Parry Island in the Canadian Arctic.

It appears that some Canadian leaders are in full support of this program. In the summer 2004, Canada agreed to amend the NORAD treaty to allow sharing satellite and radar data with the ballistic missile defense program based in Colorado. This operation center will control the 40 interceptor rockets planned for Alaska, California and at sea.

On February 22, 2005, at the NATO summit in Brussels, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin declared that his people would not participate in the controversial Missile Defense Shield. Contradicting this message, Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. (and former board member of the Caryle Group) Frank McKenna, said â€œWe are part of it now.â€

On August 2, 2004, the U.S. Air Force quietly published a new doctrine called â€œCounterspace Operations.â€ The development of offensive counterspace capabilities provides combatant commanders with new tools for counterspace operationsâ€¦that may be utilized throughout the spectrum of conflict and may achieve a variety of effects from temporary denial to complete destruction of the adversaryâ€™s space capability. It has also been noted that Canadian Military personnel are taking part in large scale American space war games designed to prepare for combat in orbit.

Under an integrated North American Command, Canada would be forced to embrace Washingtonâ€™s pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate in December 2003.

Similar bi-national negotiations are being conducted with Mexico. U.S. military could exert strategic control over air space, land mass and contiguous territorial waters extending from the Yucatan peninsula in southern Mexico to the Canadian Arctic, representing 12 percent of the worldâ€™s land mass. The militarization of South America under the â€œAndean Trade Preference Actâ€ as well as the signing of a â€œparallelâ€ military cooperation protocol by 27 countries of the Americas (the so-called Declaration of Manaus) is an integral part of the process of hemispheric integration (see story #17).

Richard N. Haass, of the U.S. Department of State, said at the 2002 Arthur Ross Lecture, â€œIn the 21st century, the principal aim of American foreign policy is to integrate other countries and organizations into arrangements that will sustain a world consistent with U.S. interests and values, and thereby promote peace, prosperity and justice as widely as possible. Integration reflects not merely a hope for the future, but the emerging reality of the Bush Administrationâ€™s foreign policy.â€

#17 U.S. Uses South American Military Bases to Expand Control of the Region

Sources:

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan/Feb 2005

Title: â€œWhatâ€™s the Deal at Mantaâ€

Author: Michael Flynn

NACLA Report on the Americas, Nov/Dec 2004

Title: â€œCreeping Militarization in the Americasâ€

Authors: Adam Isacson, Lisa Haugaard and Joy Olson

Z Magazine, December 29, 2004

Title: â€œColombiaâ€”A Shill (proxy) Country For U.S. Intervention In Venezuelaâ€

Authors: Sohan Sharma and Surinder Kumar

Faculty Evaluator: Jorge Porras, Ph. D.

Student Researchers: Adrienne Smith, Sarah Kintz

The United States has a military base in Manta, Ecuador, one of the three military bases located in Latin America. According to the United States, we are there to help the citizens of Manta, but an article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists says that many people tell a different story.

According to Miguel Moran, head of a group called Movimiento Tohalli, which opposes the Manta military base, â€œManta is part of a broader U.S. imperialist strategy aimed at exploiting the continentâ€™s natural resources, suppressing popular movements, and ultimately invading neighboring Colombia.â€ Michael Flynn reported that the military base in Ecuador is an â€œintegral part of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Colombiaâ€”and is a potential staging ground for direct American involvement in the conflict there. Ecuadorians worry that the U.S. could ultimately pull their country into conflict.â€ Flynn goes on to say that â€œthe base is also at the center of a growing controversy regarding the U.S. efforts to block mass emigration from Ecuador [to the U.S.].â€ Policy makers have diminished the difference between police roles and military roles, stating that a police force is a body designed to protect a population through minimal use of force and the military, which aims to defeat an enemy through use of force.

According to a ten-year lease agreement between Ecuador and the United States, â€œ… U.S. activities at the base are to be limited to counter-narcotics surveillance flights (the agreements for the other two Latin American Forward Operating Locations contain similar restrictions).â€ Ecuadorian citizens are not pleased with the lease or the way the U.S. has abused it. â€œA coalition of social and labor organizations has called for the termination of the U.S. lease in Manta on the grounds that the United States has violated both the terms of the agreement and Ecuadorian law.â€

The U.S., says Flynn, is intervening in Colombia through private corporations and organizations. Most of the military operations and the spraying of biochemical agents are contracted out to private firms and private armies. In 2003, according to the article in Z Magazine, the U.S. State Department said, â€œ…there are seventeen primary contracting companies working in Colombia, initially receiving $3.5 million.â€ One of these private American defense contractors, DynCorp, runs the military base at Manta. â€œThe Pentagonâ€™s decision to give DynCorpâ€”a company that many Latin Americans closely associate with U.S. activities in Colombiaâ€”the contract to administer the base reinforced fears that the United States had more than drug interdiction in mind when it set up shop in Manta,â€ says Flynn.

In addition, say Sharma and Kumar, DynCorp was awarded a â€œ$600 million contract to carry out aerial spraying to eliminate coca crops which also contaminates maize, Yucca, and plantains-staple foods of the population; children and adults develop skin rashes.â€ The chemical, the foundation for the herbicide Roundup, is sprayed in Ecuador in a manner that would be illegal in the United States.

According to the NACLA report, in 2004, the Pentagon began installing 3 substitute logistics centers (now under construction) in the provinces of Guayas, Azuay, and Sucumbios, and is currently militarizing the Ecuadorian police who are receiving â€œanti-terroristâ€ training by the FBI. The U.S. military is also aiding Colombiaâ€™s â€œwar on drugs.â€ Isacson, Haugaard and Olson write that, â€œincreased militarization of antinarcotics operation is a pretext for stepped up counterinsurgency action and extending the war against them by the U.S.â€ Washington also has seven security offices in Ecuador: defense (DAO), drug enforcement (DEA), military aid (MAAG), internal security, national security (NSA), the U.S. Agency for Internal Development (USAID), the Peace Corps, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to the Bush Administration they are mixing military and police roles to â€œ…govern its counter-terror efforts in the hemisphere.â€

Michael Flynn offers this quote from an Ecuadorian writer as another example of the United States intervening in the operations of another country to further its own agenda: â€œThe U.S. invasion of Iraq and the pressure on Ecuador to sign the interdiction agreement form part of a policy aimed at consolidating a unipolar world with one hegemonic superpower.â€

Update by Michael Flynn: I think one important aspect of my story about the Manta base is that it shows the arrogance that often characterizes U.S. relations with its southern neighbors. This arrogance comes with a heavy price, which the U.S. is paying now as South American leaders express an ever greater willingness to take an independent path in their affairs and reject the U.S. lead. This fact was clearly revealed recently when the Organization of American States soundly rejected a U.S. proposal to set up a mechanism to review the state of democracy in the Americas. Manta is a small part of this much larger picture. U.S. ambassadors, the head of Southcom, even representatives in Congress have shown a disregard for Ecuadorian concerns about operations at the Manta base, which has helped fan criticism of the base, and has turned into a lightning rod of criticism of U.S. policies. And this is only one of among dozens of similar bases spread out across the globeâ€”what impact are they having on U.S. relations?

An equally important issue touched on in my story is the U.S. reaction to the migration crises that has gripped several Latin countries in recent years. Manta is a sort of quasi-outpost of the U.S. southern border, which has shown remarkable flexibility in recent years. The fact is, the border itself ceased long ago to be the front line in the effort to stop unwanted migration. The United States uses military bases located in host countries as staging grounds for detention efforts. It has funded detention centers in places like Guatemala City, and it has teamed up with law enforcement officials from other countries to carry out multi-lateral operations aimed at breaking up migrant smuggling activities. Manta is one piece in this larger puzzle.

To my knowledge, the mainstream press has not picked up on the precise story lines covered in my article. On the other hand, the press has not altogether ignored these issues either. Ginger Thompson of the New York Times has tracked the plight of migrants in several Latin American countries, and last year she teamed up with an Ecaudorean journalist to produce a remarkable story about the harrowing experience of migrants who dare to board the smuggling vessels leaving Ecuadorean shores. They did not, however, scrutinize Mantaâ€™s role in interdicting these migrants, or address the many problematic aspects of U.S. overseas interdiction practices. Regarding U.S. overseas military bases, the recent turmoil in Uzbekistan has drawn the attention of the U.S. press to contradictions in U.S. policy that have emerged between its desire to have bases in strategic spots around the world and President Bushâ€™s promise to advocate democratic change across the globe. Also, Dana Priest of the Washington Post has done excellent work reporting on the role of U.S. bases and military commanders around the globe. See, for example, Priestâ€™s The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with Americaâ€™s Military (New York: Norton, 2003). Several alternative press outlets have also tracked this issue, including for example Mother Jones magazine, which ran a story by Chalmers Johnson on this issue, and the Nation Instituteâ€™s Tom Engelhardt, who has run a number of pieces in his TomDispatch touching on U.S. overseas bases.

For additional information: For those interested in following up on the Manta base, the best source of information online is the web site of the Ecuadorean daily: El Universo at http://www.eluniverso.com/.

I would also suggest looking at the studies about U.S. forward operation locations published by the Amsterdam-based Transnational Institute at http://www.tni.org/.

To find out more about U.S. cross-border interdiction policies, a story that has been woefully under-reported in the United States, I suggest taking a look at other stories I have written on this subject, some of which are available on the web site of the International Reporting Project: http://www.pewfellowships.org/index.htm.

Finally, to get a global perspective of U.S. basing ambitions, I suggest perusing the May 2005 report of the U.S. Overseas Basing Commission, which is available online at http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/obc.pdf.

Update by Lisa Haugaard: While the nation is focused on events in Iraq and Afghanistan, 9/11 has also had a disturbing impact on U.S. policy toward Latin America. But the growth in U.S. military programs towards Latin America and the unfortunate emphasis by the United States on encouraging non-defense related roles for militaries is part of a more general trend that the Center for International Policy, Latin America Working Group Education Fund and Washington Office on Latin America have been documenting since 1997. Latin American civil society organizations, individuals and governmental leaders have struggled hard to strictly limit their militariesâ€™ involvement in civilian affairs, given that many militaries in the region had exercised severe repression, carried out military coups and maintained political control during several turbulent decades. After this painful history, it is troubling for the United States to be encouraging militaries to once again adopt non-defense related roles, as is the growing weight of U.S. military, rather than regional development aid in U.S. relations.

We are seeing a continuation of the general trend of declining U.S. development assistance and stable military aid to the region as well as the United States encouraging actions that blur the line between civilian police and military roles. We are also witnessing efforts by the Defense Department to exercise greater control over â€œsecurity assistanceâ€(foreign military aid programs) worldwide, which were once overseen exclusively by the State Department. This almost invisible shift-â€”by no means limited to Latin Americaâ€”is disturbing because it removes the State Department as the lead agency in deciding where foreign military aid and training is appropriate as part of U.S. foreign policy. It will lead to less stringent oversight of military programs and less emphasis upon human rights conditionality.

Our report, which we published in Spanish, received good coverage from the Latin American press. Mainstream U.S. newspapers regularly use our military aid database. The larger story about the general trends in U.S. military aid in Latin America and changes in oversight of foreign military programs, however, is one that has been covered by only a few major media outlets.

To see our military aid database, reports and other information (a collaborative project by the three organizations) see our â€œJust the Factsâ€ website, http://www.ciponline.org/facts. See also our organizationsâ€™ websites: Washington Office on Latin America, www.wola.org; Center for International Policy, www. ciponline.org; and Latin America Working Group Education Fund, www.lawg.org.

We welcome efforts by journalists, scholars and nongovernmental organizations to insist upon greater transparency and public oversight of U.S. military training programs, not just in Latin America but worldwide.

#18 Little Known Stock Fraud Could Weaken U.S. Economy

Sources:

San Antonio Express-Newsâ€”March 2, 2005

Title: â€œNaked Short Selling Is A Plague For Businesses And Investorsâ€

Author: David Hendricks

TheMotleyFool.comâ€”March 30, 2005

Title: â€œWhoâ€™s Behind Naked Shorting?â€

Author: Karl Thiel

Financial Wireâ€”Stockgate Today Series

Title: â€œSECâ€™s Donaldson Addresses Liquidity Fraud,â€ September 20, 2004;

â€œDateline NBC Cancelled and Attorney Accuses DTCC of Cheap Thuggery,â€ April 7, 2005

Author: Dave Patch

Faculty Evaluator: Wingham Liddell, Ph.D.

Student Researcher: David Stolowitz

The negligence of government regulatory agencies and the media is becoming worrisome as a major scandal, unknown outside the financial community, is bankrupting small businesses and investors and having a negative effect on the economy.

While the balance of supply and demand is a fairly well known principle of economic health, a related and similar relationship exists between liquidityâ€”the availability of liquid, spendable assets such as cash, stocks and bondsâ€”and securityâ€”the stability, endurance and trustworthiness of more long-term financial mechanisms.

A healthy economy requires both enough access to liquid assets to ensure a smooth and flexible flow of money and a system that guarantees enough stability, protection and security for investors to take a reasonable measure of risk without having excessive fears of losing their money. Unreasonable emphasis on the first requirement and not enough attention to the second is a trend that has developed in the last decade and may have more to do with ideology than sound economic policy. Liquidity fraud and naked shorting abuses as described in this article are a symptom of a greater problem within our economic culture. This lopsided philosophy of economic regulation is a significant factor in creating the kind of climate that has produced company scandals like Enron and WorldCom, as well as a careless attitude towards free trade and globalization that may create more costs than benefits in the name of â€œeconomic growth.â€

The scandal coined â€œStockgateâ€ by the Financial Wire involves the abuse of a practice called â€œshort selling.â€ As opposed to a traditional approach to investing in which stocks are researched and bought on the hope they will rise over the â€œlongâ€ term, going â€œshortâ€ involves a bet that a stock is about to go down in value. In a short sale, an investor sells stock that he or she technically doesnâ€™t own. The investor borrows these shares of stock from their broker, who in turn may likely borrow the shares himself from a financial clearinghouse like a brokerage firm or hedge fund. Hoping that the price of the stock will drop, the investor is obligated to eventually â€œcloseâ€ the short by buying back the sold shares at a hopefully lower price, thus making a profit from the fall of the stock. When the time runs out for â€œcoveringâ€ the short and the price hasnâ€™t dropped, the investor is forced to buy back the shares at a loss and take a financial hit. The short sale of stocks is a risky bet, usually not recommended except for speculation or hedgingâ€”to protect long-term financial positions with short-term offsets. As short-selling is a sale of stocks not owned, but loaned, it is an example of buying on marginâ€”a category of practices whose abuses stand out clearly in many peopleâ€™s minds as a significant factor in the Stock Market Crash of 1929 which ushered in the Great Depression.

Naked shorting is an illegal abuse of short selling in which investors short-sell stock that they have no intention or ability to ever cover. When allowed to occur, naked shorting drives the stock value of a company down by creating more stock shares flowing around the market than actual shares of stock that the company can back with their current earnings. Companies, their shareholders, and indeed the entire economy are hurt financially by naked shorting, as it reduces the money available to support economic growth. According to activist Dave Patch, â€Naked shorting steals some of the greatest ideas, products, and services in America. Small micro-cap companies are driven out of business by this abuse and we are left with the unknowns of what these companies and their employees had to offer our futures. The opportunities for the next Microsoft may never be felt as naked shorting snuffed out that creativity before it was ever brought to fruition. Ultimately, naked shorting steals from the very foundation of our nation as it steals the American dream of opportunity.â€

Patch and other investors hurt by or concerned about the consequences of naked shorting organized, petitioned and investigated the background surrounding the Stockgate scandal. What they found was not merely a series of noteworthy cases of extravagant abuse by individual investors and professionals, but a systemic pattern of negligence by regulators that allowed the abuse to go by largely unchecked. A whole series of checks and balances was originally designed to prevent abuses like naked shorting. Yet, as their research has shown, every regulator along the way has failed its duty and led to both widespread and high-figure abuse. While investors have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in savings, the Wall Street Firms responsible for the abuse saw negligible fines that had no appreciable impact on their stock values. Some executives were even given raises in the midst of their negligence and fraud!

As more pressure has been brought against regulatory agencies to stop the fraud and enforce rules, an opposition has come forth that actually favors allowing the illegal practice to continue unchecked. These critics argue that all short sales, including illegal naked shorts, help bust the hype that can surround micro-cap companies. Excitement over new but untried ideas can artificially inflate stock prices, causing eventual losses to companies and investors when the bubble bursts, as in the case of the dot-com boom of the â€™90s.

While it is true, as the critics argue, that removing naked shorting could in some cases allow hyped prices to climb further, such an effect is vastly overrated. The argument does not take many other financial factors into account, such as the increased efficiency in the flow of information and shares that eliminating naked shorting would create or the fact that legal short selling could provide the same protections. Many securities analysts say it is fallacious to assert that the only recourse to the adjustment in hype and price securities is to allow an illegal practice to continue.

The same enforcement of already existing rules by regulators could curb hype just as much as it curbs naked shorts. A proactive stance by the financial community in informing and educating the public could also prevent the pump and dump schemes that such critics say would be the consequence of ending naked shorting.

Often it is the very organizations that did little to stop the dot-com problem from getting out of hand while it was occurring that now cry out at the prospect of the SEC stepping up to protect small investors from naked shorting. Of particular interest is the fact that much of this criticism comes out of the Depository Trust Commission (DTCC), which takes a share of profits from every short sale and is currently fighting off lawsuits accusing it of impropriety in a number of areas. The DTCC is also alleged to have brought pressure to bear on media corporations such as General Electric to suppress the story from being reported. GEâ€™s NBC Dateline program obtained an exclusivity contract to cover the Stockgate scandal over a year ago, and then postponed the episode indefinitely. Officially, Dateline claims that a slew of more important stories than this widespread financial scandal have caused the delay. At the time of this writing, however, they are preparing to air an Al Roker interview with an American Idol finalist.

Additional References:

David Sedore, â€œHedge Fund Assets Frozenâ€: March 4, 2005; â€œHedge Fund Virtually Bareâ€: March 12, 2005; etc. The Palm Beach Postâ€”KL Financial fraud series.

PrimeZone Media Network, â€œFirst American Scientific Corp. Takes Counter Measures to Stop â€˜Naked Shortingâ€™ of its Stockâ€â€”December 17, 2004.

#19 Child Wards of the State Used in AIDS Experiments

Sources:

UK Observer

Title: â€œGlaxoSmithKline Allegedly Used Children as Laboratory Animalsâ€

Author: Antony Barnett

Barnett’s article is based on the original research of Liam Scheff which can be viewed at:

http://www.altheal.org/texts/house.htm

Democracy Now! December 2004

Title: â€œGuinea Pig Kids: How New York City is Using Children to Test Experimental AIDS Drugs.â€

Mainstream Media Coverage: Fox News Network, The Oâ€™Reilley Factor, March 10, 2004, CBS Morning News, February 2, 2005.

Faculty Evaluator: Jeanette Koshar, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Mike Cattivera, Kiel Eorio

Orphans as young as three months old were used as test subjects in AIDS drug trials in New Yorkâ€™s Incarnation Childrenâ€™s Center. The Center, which is run by Catholic Charities, specializes in treating HIV sufferers, and the drug trials were performed on children with HIV or who were born to HIV-positive mothers. The New York City Health Department is looking into claims that more than 100 children at Incarnation were used in as many as 36 experiments. Most of these experiments were sponsored by federal agencies such as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Documents obtained by the UK Observer have implicated British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKlineâ€™s involvement in at least four experiments conducted at Incarnation since 1995 using black and Hispanic children. Several trials were conducted to test the toxicity of AIDS drugs. In one trial, children as young as four received a high-dosage cocktail of seven drugs; another tested the reaction of six-month-olds to a double dosage of a measles vaccine. Other studies conducted on children included testing AZT, which can carry dangerous side effects, as well as testing the long term safety of anti-bacterial drugs on six-month old babies. GlaxoSmithKline also used children to â€œobtain tolerance, safety and pharmacokinetic dataâ€ for Herpes drugs.

These trials were conducted by Columbia University Medical Center doctors. A spokesperson for Columbia University said that there have been no trials at Incarnation since 2000, and that the consent for using the children as test subjects was provided by the Administration for Childrenâ€™s Services. Consent was based upon a panel of doctors and lawyers who decided whether or not the benefits of allowing the child to receive the drugs outweighed the risks (although it was unclear what recipient â€œbenefitsâ€ referred to). Though GlaxoSmithKline has acknowledged their involvement in the trials at Incarnation, they deny any wrongdoing. According to their spokesperson: â€œThese studies were implemented by the U.S. Aids Clinical Trial Group, a clinical research network paid for by the National Institutes of Health. Glaxoâ€™s involvement in such studies would have been to provide study drugs or funding but we would have no interactions with the patients.â€

The medical community has defended these studies, saying it enabled children, normally without access to treatment, the opportunity to receive AIDS drugs. However, many, outraged at these studies, argue there is a difference between providing children with the latest AIDS drugs and using them for experimentation. According to Antony Barnett, several experiments were considered to be Phase 1 trials, which are among the most dangerous. These drugs are similar to those used in chemotherapy and carry serious side effects. Critics also argue that it is difficult to test babies for HIV, and results are often incorrect; therefore many of these trials may have been conducted on babies or children not actually infected with HIV.

These trials at New Yorkâ€™s Incarnation Childrenâ€™s Center were part of a broader series of HIV and AIDS drug trials that were conducted in at least seven states on foster children. Some children died during the trials. However, government officials have so far found no evidence that their deaths could be directly connected to the experiments.1

NOTE

1. http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20050511-103959-2907r.htm.

#20 American Indians Sue for Resources; Compensation Provided to Others

Sources:

LiP, Winter 2004

Title: â€œTrust Us, Weâ€™re the Government: How to Make $137 Billion of Indian Money Disappear.â€

Author: Brian Awehali

News from Indian Country, March 8, 2004

Title: â€œDespite Wealth of Resources, Many Tribes Still Live in Povertyâ€

Author: Angie Wagner

Mainstream Media Coverage: New York Times, April 7, 2004, and the Washington Post, March 14, 2004

Community Evaluator: Keith Pike MA

Student Researcher: Kiel Eorio

Native Americans, after more than two centuries, are still being cheated by the government and U.S. companies. Oil companies operate at Montezuma Creek in Utah. Montezuma Creek lies on a Navajo Reservation. The companies have under-compensated the Native Americans for the right to their natural resources since the 1950s. District court-appointed invesigator Alan Balaran discovered that non-Native Americans in the same area received royalties that amounted to more than 20 times the amount of the Native Americans on the reservation.

Native American reservations are filled with natural resources, but the government has routinely allowed energy companies to short-change the tribes. In Balaranâ€™s findings it shows that the government owes Native Americans as much as $137.5 billion in back royalties. The issue of the government keeping funds from Native Americans dates back to the Dawes Act of 1887. The Dawes act created a trust fund for Native Americans over the years; since then the government has grossly mismanaged revenues from oil, timber and mineral leases on tribal land.

According to Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe, many Native Americans depend on these royalty checks for the bare necessities. The Navajo Nation has more than 140,000 members and is the countryâ€™s largest tribe. It is also one of the poorest. More than 40 percent of its people live in poverty while the median household annual income is $20,000, less than half of the national median. Mary Johnson, a Navajo tribe member, who lives in a one bedroom stone house off the main highway, once received a royalty check for $5.30. These required checks are commonly paid out in sporadic intervals.

Johnson Martinez, a 68-year-old Navajo, lives out of a trailer that is pulled by his pickup truck. His â€œhomeâ€ is just yards away from where gas pipelines sit on the family land. He has no running water and sometimes no electricity. There are even times when he doesnâ€™t have any food. At night he builds a fire to keep him and his dogs warm. Sometimes he has received checks for only a few cents.

In 1994, Congress passed the American Indian Trust Reform Act. This required the Interior Department to account for all the money in the trust fund and clean up the accounting process. The Individual Indian Monies case, also known as Cobell V. Norton, is the largest class action suit ever filed against the federal government. Filed in 1996, Elouise Cobell is at the center of the suit that involves more than 100 years of revenues generated by government leases on Native American land held â€œin trustâ€ for mining as well as oil and gas exploration. For years she has tried to get an accurate accounting of funds held in trust by the U.S. Government for individual Native American land leased by the federal government for natural resource stripping. The defendant in the Cobell V. Norton case is Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton. She has been held in contempt by Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth for ignoring his orders to account for the fund. Lamberth stated that he had never seen greater government incompetence than the Interior Department had shown in administrating the money and representing itself in court.

In early of 2001, Alan Balaran, the investigator in the case, made a surprise visit to the Governmentâ€™s warehouse. There he found papers from a shredder, which had records concerning the money paid out of the trust fund. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, which resides under the Interior Department, stated that similar documents were being shredded every day.

In March of 2004, Lamberth ordered a shutdown for the Interior Departmentâ€™s internet connections due to security holes that could have allowed hackers to access hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties from Native American lands managed by the agency, according to Balaranâ€™s findings. This was the third internet shutdown in three years. This particular shutdown was ordered after the Interior Department refused to sign sworn certificates that it had fixed major security flaws. This is the same system that processes hundreds of millions of dollars annually for Native Americans.

In April of 2004, Alan Balaran resigned under pressure as the investigator in the case. He states that the Bush Administration has been pursuing his refusal to silence criticisms of the Interior Departmentâ€™s handling of individual Native American accounts. Balaranâ€™s findings show that the Bush Administration knowingly allowed energy companies to continue to pay Native Americans far less than non-Native Americans for natural resources. Judge Royce C. Lamberth has ordered the government to complete a historic accounting for all funds in the case by January 6, 2008.

References:

Rocky Mountain News, August 21, 2003 â€œIndians Underpaid for Land Leases, Official Charges; Appraisal Program Under Norton Targetedâ€ by M.E. Sprengelmeyer.

Bismarck Tribune, April 7, 2004, â€œInvestigator: Interior Favored Companiesâ€ by Robert Gehrke.

PR Newswire, February 24, 2005 â€œCobell Litigation Team: U.S. District Court Reissues Structural Injunction in Cobell V. Norton Indian Trust Case-Full Accounting to Be Complete by January 6, 2008.â€

Update by Brian Awehali: The Cobell v. Norton case is important because the government is colossally and obviously wrong. This is evident in light of the success of Eloise Cobellâ€™s team in successive court victories. The sheer scope of the case, its possible precedent-setting resolution, and the ways in which it highlights the current limitations of Native Americansâ€™ dependent-yet-sovereign status, all provide opportunities for real reform and long-term re-examination of the terms of U.S.-to-Native, government-to-government relations.

Media coverage of this story has largely suffered from two main challenges. The first challenge has been the massive bureaucratic complexities of the case, which I believe insulated it from quite a lot of daily news coverage. The second, and subtler, challenge is the average Americanâ€™s lack of understanding of Native sovereignty. Without a clear understanding of this, Americans literally have no meaningful framework to fit the story into, and it simply disappears.

Ongoing security flaws in the Department of the Interiorâ€™s trust accounting systems have continued for a ridiculously long time. Despite failure after failure to amend security flaws that allow for manipulation of records, and in spite of repeated documented instances of bureaucratic ill will resulting in massive theft and â€œlossâ€ from trust accounts, the Department of the Interior is still in charge of them. Another investigative story on SmartMoney.com (December 3, 2004) reported that â€œofficials in the Bush Administration had detailed knowledge of fraudulent practices that allowed energy companies to cheat impoverished Native Americans out of vast sums over dozens of years.â€

Indian Country Today also reported that behind the scenes negotiations might already be happening between the White House and Congressâ€”but not with the plaintiffs in the case. The piece also warns of the possibility of another â€œmidnight riderâ€ on an appropriations bill that would effectively defer justice for yet another year.

Because recent developments in this case have centered mostly around court motions and abstruse legal machinations, there hasnâ€™t been much hard â€œnewsâ€ for the mainstream press to grab onto. Without new and breaking â€œhooks,â€ I think the perception is that this is an old story, rather than the very urgent and pressing one that it is. I also believe the governmentâ€™s strategyâ€”stall, obfuscate and deceiveâ€”is a deliberate attempt to keep media attention largely surface and scattershot.

The best places to go for information about the case are the following sites: http://www.indiantrust.com, Indian Country Today: http://www.indiancountry.com, The Friends Committee on National Legislation: http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1266&issue_id=112

#21 New Immigration Plan Favors Business Over People

Sources:

Interhemispheric Resource Center IRC,

November 16, 2004,

Washington Free Press, Nov/Dec, 2004

Title: How U.S. Corporations Won the Debate Over Immigration

Author: David Bacon

www.washingtonfreepress.org/72/howUsCorporationsWon.htm

MotherJones.com, November 11, 2004

Title: â€œMigrants No Moreâ€

Author: Maggie Jones

www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/11/11_404

Faculty Evaluator: Francisco Vazquez, Ph.D.

Student Researchers: Joseph F. Davis

A bi-partisan effort from the Federal government is emerging to close the borders with Mexico by increasing barriers that keep â€œillegalâ€ immigrants from traveling to and from Mexico, and in turn creating a guest worker program with specific time limits for residency. Reminiscent of the defunct bracero program, the status of â€œguest workerâ€ has reappeared as the preferred name for Mexican nationals working in this country.

The leading organization behind the guest worker legislation is The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC), which was organized in 1999, while Bill Clinton was still president. The group quickly grew to include 36 of the countryâ€™s most powerful employer associations, headed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The National Association of Chain Drug Storesâ€”including Wal Mart (which was sanctioned for employing undocumented workers last year)â€”belongs, as do the American Health Care Association, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the National Council of Chain Restaurants, the National Restaurant Association, and the National Retail Federation. Each of these associations represents employers who depend on a workforce almost entirely without benefits and working at (or below) minimum wage.

Edward Kennedy, Democrat, and John McCain, Republican, are promoting a bi-partisan bill that would create the designation of â€œguest workerâ€ for a three year period. About half a million workers would be eligible for the status if they are sponsored by American businesses and pay five hundred dollars. The over ten million undocumented workers residing in the United States who are not sponsored by businesses would be encouraged to come forward and pay a two-thousand-dollar fine to receive the new status. The guest worker category can be renewed after three years, or businesses could sponsor workers for green cards.

The proposed legislation does not address the growing problem of undocumented workers residing in the United States. Because of the nature of the work being offered under this program, most guest workers will be left with little more than minimum wage employment. There are no benefits or health care offered under the new program. The two-thousand-dollar price tag for uninvited potential guest workers means that most of the more than ten million undocumented workers will be unwilling to come forth. Historically, millions of Mexican laborers would return to Mexico during off-seasons to visit family. Today, with tighter border restrictions and the cost of paying a labor smuggler up to $300, few people return to Mexico, resulting in permanent under-class poverty communities spread out throughout the country.

There has been no serious discussion on Capitol Hill on realistically dealing with the undocumented worker situation in this country because U.S. corporations will continue to benefit from cheap labor sources from outside and inside the borders of the United States.

The official bracero program, negotiated in 1942 between the U.S. and Mexican governments was ended in 1964. Ernesto Galarza, a labor organizer, former diplomat and early hero of the Chicano movement, was its greatest opponent in Washington. But Cesar Chavez was also an early voice calling for abolition. Chavez later said he could never have organized the United Farm Workers until growers could no longer hire braceros during strikes. In fact, the great five-year grape strike in which the UFW was born began the year after the bracero program ended. According to the UFWâ€™s Mark Grossman, â€œChavez believed agribusinessâ€™ chief farm labor strategy for decades was maintaining a surplus labor supply to keep wages and benefits depressed, and fight unionization.â€

The organization of veterans of the bracero program, with chapters in both the U.S. and Mexico, was even more critical. â€œWeâ€™re totally opposed to the institution of new guest worker programs,â€ explained Ventura Gutierrez, head of the Union Sin Fronteras. â€œPeople who lived through the old program know the abuse they will cause.â€ One former bracero, Manual Herrera, told the Associated Pressâ€™s Julianna Barbassa, â€œthey rented us, got our work, then sent us back when they had no more use for us.â€ Thousands of former braceros are still trying to collect money deducted from their pay during the 1940s and 1950s.

Money that was supposedly held in trust to ensure they completed work contracts, but never turned over to them. Bushâ€™s proposal contains a similar provision. â€œIf we accept, then our grandsons and great-grandsons will go through what we went through,â€ ex-bracero Florentino Lararios told Barbassa. U.S. labor opposition focused on the lack of a real amnesty. Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, and one of the AFL-CIOâ€™s key policy makers on immigration, said, â€œBush tells immigrants you have no right to earn citizenship, but tells corporations you have the right to exploit workers, both American and immigrantâ€¦.â€ This proposal allows hard-working, tax-paying immigrants to become a legitimate part of our economy, but it keeps them from fully participating in our democracyâ€”making immigrants a permanent sub-class of our society.

Update by David Bacon: â€œHow Corporations Won the Debate over Immigrationâ€ broke a story of national importanceâ€”how the largest U.S. corporations, dependent on a steady supply of immigrant workers, got the President and Congress to introduce legislation giving them a vastly expanded guest worker program. This program, like the old â€œbraceroâ€ program of the 1940s and â€™50s, used a system of contract labor to exploit immigrant workers and deny them their rights, while creating an oversupply of labor to drive down wages for all workers, immigrant and non-immigrant alike.

The story was originally published in the fall of 2004. By the spring of 2005, corporate pressure for expanded guestworker programs had grown so strong that even bipartisan proposals for immigration reform included them. The word in Washington DC is now that no immigration reform is worth discussing unless corporate America gets what it wants. In mid-May, a new bill was introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain, which includes a program even larger than that proposed by Bush.

The Presidentâ€™s program calls for 300,000 people to be given temporary visas for three years, renewable for another three. The Kennedy/McCain bill calls for 400,000 temporary visas. In addition, the bill calls for requiring the 9 million currently undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to enroll as guestworkers for six years to qualify for making application for a green card, and to pay a $2000 fine. Increased enforcement of employer sanctions, the law that makes it a federal crime for an undocumented worker to hold a job, would be used to force people into the program by making it even more risky to try to work without becoming a guest worker.

Despite these draconian provisions, the bill won the sponsorship of many Democrats, and almost no Republicans. In the meantime, Texas Senator Cornyn annouunced his intention to introduce an even more conservative bill in mid-July. The Cornyn bill is regarded as the legislative embodiment of the Presidentâ€™s program. It is a straight temporary worker bill, with no provisions for legalization.

No matter whether sponsored by Democrats or Republicans, the corporate lobby for temporary workers has legislation which corresponds to its program.

In the meantime, however, a much more liberal bill has been introduced by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Instead of increasing job competition and pitting one group of low-wage workers against another, the bill tries to balance the needs of all low-wage workers. African-American and other minority communities suffering high unemployment would receive job training and creation programs. The bill would set up a legalization program for undocumented immigrants based on their residency, rather than employment status. It has provisions to strengthen protection for the rights of immigrant workers, ends discrimination against immigrants from countries like Haiti and Liberia, and has no guest worker program.

Republicans and many Democrats have derided the Jackson Lee bill as incompatible with the atmosphere in Congress, which seeks both to reward corporations and increase punitive measures against immigrants, especially the undocumented. But a rising tide of protest in immigrant communities and other communities of color around the country has criticized the growing wave of anti-immigrant legislation, and is callling for a movement to defend their rights instead.

Generally, the story of corporate sponsorship of the guest worker proposals has been ignored by the mainstream media. Reports on the Kennedy-McCain and Bush proposals have treated them as â€œpro-immigrantâ€ because they would allow workers to cross the border legally. Theyâ€™ve ignored the actual conditions for immigrants under current guest worker programs, as well as the money and influence trail leading back from these proposals to the corporate lobby, the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition. They have also ignored the Jackson-Lee bill, even though it presents the unprecedented political situation in which the countryâ€™s most progressive immigration legislation is being proposed by African-American Congress members.

Readers who want more information about the overall situation of immigrants and legislation which affects them can contact the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, at 510-465-1984, www.nnirr.org. More information on pending immigration legislation and the Jackson Lee bill is available from Nolan Rappaport, minority counsel to the House Immigration Subcommittee, 202-225-2329.

#22 Nanotechnology Offers Exciting Possibilities But Health Effects Need Scrutiny

Source:

The Chronicle of Higher Education September 10, 2004

Title: â€œThe Dark Side of Smallâ€

Author: Richard Monastersky

Faculty Evaluator: Scott Gordon, Ph. D., Jennifer Lillig Whiles, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Jason Piepmeier

The science of nanotechnology is rapidly advancing, but there is little research to show whether or not nano-sized molecules are safe for people and the environment.

Nanotechnology is the science of using molecules that are virtually impossible to see; one blood cell measures at 7,000 nanometers in width. Nanotechnology has virtually unlimited potential. Products such as stainless, wrinkle free pants use nanotechnology as well as transparent sunscreens and tennis balls that keep their bounce. The U.S. government spent close to $1 billion in 2004 on research and development in nanotechnology.

However, only 1 percent of it is going towards research for risk assessment, despite the fact that nanotechnology also has the potential to cause harm to people and the environment. The nano-sized molecules can damage, or kill, the skin cells of humans and also kill valuable bacteria in water. The reason little money is given to research the risks is nanotechnologyâ€™s huge upside; some estimates predict that the nanotech market will reach $1 trillion in a decade.

Thousands of papers have come out touting different developments in nanoscience, but fewer than fifty have examined how engineered nanoparticles will affect people and the environment. The studies that have been conducted to determine if nano-molecules are safe paint a grim picture for nanotechnology. In the spring of 2004, Eva Oberdorster, an adjunct scientist at Duke University, made headlines with potentially disturbing news about highly praised a nanoparticle called â€œfullerness,â€ named for the inventor R. Buckminister Fuller.

The â€œfullernessâ€ is made of 60 carbon atoms, bonded together like a molecular soccer ball. Oberdorster put a solution of â€œfullernessâ€ into a tank with large-mouthed bass and later examined different organs in the fish. She found signs of oxidative damage in their brains and speculated that the nanoparticles had stimulated the production of free radicals, highly reactive compounds that can cause cellular damage. â€œNormally,â€ she said, â€œparticles canâ€™t get into the brains of fish or people because a protective structure called the blood-brain barrier keeps out harmful materials.â€ But Oberdorsterâ€™s, and other experiments show that nano-size particles can slip through that barrier by traveling up nerve cells into the brain.

Oberdorsterâ€™s father also studies the effects of nanoparticles. Dr. Gunter Oberdorster, a professor of toxicology in environmental medicine at the University of Rochester, received a $5.5 million, five-year grant from the Department of Defense to study the effects of nanoparticles. Scientists at the University of Rochester looked at the titanium dioxide nanoparticles that are used as pigments in white paint. Rats and mice inhaled particles ranging in size from 12 nanometers up to 250 nanometers. The smaller particles were found to cause more inflammation than an equal amount of larger particles. â€œThe smaller particles react differently from the larger ones,â€ he says, â€œbecause nano-size materials evade the normal defense system in the lungs, the macrophage cells that gobble up the irritants and clear them out.â€ Once nanoparticles get deep into the lungs, they can cross over into the blood stream and from there can into any organ in the body. Inhaling the nano-sized particles in titanium dioxide, which is on the market now, is unlikely because they are captured in liquid substances. However, Dr. Oberdoester suggests that it may be possible for nanoparticles to cross over through the skin.

Another study, run by Anna A. Shevedova, an adjunct associate professor at West Virginia and a senior staff scientist at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), found that carbon nanotubes generated dangerous free radicals in cultures of human skin cells. Her research team reported that the nanotubes caused oxidative damage that triggered the deaths of cells.

Almost everybody involved in nanotechnology says it is too soon to tell whether and how these materials might harm people or the environment. But early studies show that this is something that should be looked into more seriously. In a survey conducted by North Carolina State University, public perception of nanotechnology remains fairly positive. As has happened with new technologies in the past, this optimism may become accusations and lawsuits if the side effects of nanotechnology outweigh the benefits.

#23 Plight of Palestinian Child Detainees Highlights Global Problem

Sources:

Left Turn, December 2004

Title: â€œControl & Resistance: Palestinian Child Prisonersâ€

Authors: Catherine Cook, Adah Kay, Adam Hanieh

The Guardian, August 28, 2004

Title: â€œPalestinians Want an End to Their Solitary Confinementâ€

Author: Karma Nabulsi

Faculty Evaluator: Carolyn Epple, Ph. D. Maureen Buckley, Ph. D.

Student Researcher: Shatae Jones

According to Catherine Cook, Adah Kay, and Adam Hanieh, approximately 350 Palestinian children ages 12-18, are currently being held in Israeli prisons. Over 2,000 children have been arrested since the beginning of the second Intifada, a Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation. This number corresponds with number given in a report by the human rights organization Defense for Children International, which adds that another 170 children are held in military detention centers.

Looking at the testimonies from hundreds of detained children, Cook et al found a pattern in the childrenâ€™s experience of arrest, interrogation, sentencing and prison conditions. The children overwhelmingly reported abuse during their experience in either prison or detention camp. The consistency of these reports reveals that these patterns of abuse are not just the actions of a few bad soldiers, but perhaps reveals a broader policy. Virtually every child interviewed describes a deliberate pattern of behavior by Israeli soldiers or police characterized by violence, physical and psychological threats, and overwhelming force, often in the middle of the night. Cook, Kay and Hanieh believe that the similarity in testimonies from child prisoners points to a systematic approach to child abuse, calculated to exploit childrenâ€™s vulnerability and create feelings of fear, intimidation and helplessness.

One testimony in their study states, â€œBecause there was no one I could talk to and I felt incredibly frightened and scared, I tried to commit suicide while being in solitary confinement. On October 12, 2003, I was moved to Ofer Military Prison Camp. When I arrived the soldiers asked me to take off my clothes. They used a metal detector on my naked body. One hand was holding the metal detector, while the other hand touched my naked body, concentrating mainly on my back and bottom.â€

Even without the abuses by personnel, the living conditions that children are put in are bad enough. The report by Karma Nabulsi tells us that children are â€œlocked in cells for hours on end with, in some cases, only 45 minutes outdoor exercise allowed every two days. Many are forced to sleep on the floor due to overcrowding. Windows are boarded up with iron panels, which block out the light and intensify the heat in the rooms.â€ Practices, such as these, have been well documented in other troubled areas around the world, but are only beginning to be documented within occupied territories.

Also noticeable is a lack of decent healthcare. Cook, Kay and Hanieh see the abuse of children during interrogation, the notoriously poor sanitary conditions within Israeli prisons, and denial of adequate medical treatment as ways to pressure child detainees into collaboration. When conducting a series of interviews with 60 ex-prisoners from Bethlehem in 1994, the authors found that â€œ90 percent of those interviewed claimed that the administration used the denial of medical treatment as a way of recruiting collaborators.â€ One former child prisoner asserted that prisoners were well aware that the prison hospitals were using the threat of withholding treatment to force detainees to collaborate.

According to the DCI report, â€œIn many areas, Israel does not reach the standards demanded by the minimum rules [of the UN Convention of the Rights of a Child]. For instance, it is not possible for a youth in detention to work, and there are no educational facilities. In the territories, the situation is even worse.â€ This statement implies that the rights of all children (Israeli as well as Palestinian) are not being attended to by Israeli authorities. It seems that in Israel there is a problem in the attitude toward child welfare in general. But, according to Project Censored evaluator Maureen Buckley, â€œthis story represents just a small piece of the larger picture of the ongoing, worldwide failure to protect the rights of children.â€

Reference:

DCI Israel Childrenâ€™s Rights Monitor, 2004 Report â€œInternational Standards.â€

Update by Catherine Cook, Adah Kay and Adam Hanieh: In the 15 months since this article was written in spring 2004, little has changed for child prisoners, and the issue has been largely boycotted by the mainstream press. But the thousands of Palestinian political prisoners, including children under 18, in Israeli detention centers and jails remain high on the political agenda. The Israeli government still uses prisoners as a key bargaining chip in the so called â€œpeace process.â€ But relevant human rights and international standards play no part in this ritual; Palestinian negotiators could not secure the unconditional release of all child prisoners as an issue separate from negotiations over adult prisoners. So the recent second tranche of prisoners released at the end of May included only 14 children. As in the past, most of the other 384 prisoners, had almost completed their sentences.

Last year saw the revelations of U.S. torture of Iraqi prisoners including children dubbed the biggest story of the Iraqi war by William Rivers Pitt in his article â€œTorturing Children.â€1 Like Israel, the U.S. administration and military attempted to present this as rogue practice, but the evidence pointed to systemic abuse. We and others tried at the time to highlight the striking similarities to the abuse meted out over decades to Palestinian prisoners including children.2 But again, these parallels largely escaped the mainstream press.

Currently, out of around 7,500 Palestinian detainees, about 280 are children (including 30 boy administrative detainees held indefinitely without formal trial or charge). DCI/PS,3 who represent the majority of child prisoners, report a dramatic increase in arrests of 12-14 year-olds, most for throwing stones last year. There has also been an increase last year in the numbers of children arrested from the northern West Bank (e.g.Nablus and Jenin), in part reflecting the continued use of mass arrests as a method of control. They also note harsher sentencing policies, such as doubling of sentences of more than three years compared with 2003â€”only partly due to some of the charges being more serious.

There has been no improvement in detention conditions with particularly poor provision in detention/interrogation centersâ€”bare cells and inadequate food served on bits of paper with no cutlery. In prisons,4 girls are still housed in cells with adult women prisoners with little natural light, and they get no formal education. Boys also receive no education, except in one of the prisons; many are still beaten and punished by having family visits refused or solitary confinement.

In August 2004, in protest against harsh prison conditions, Palestinian prisoners launched their largest hunger strike in decades. The Israeli prison administration did their best to undermine this by confiscating liquids and salts, setting up barbeques outside cells, raiding cells, beating up prisoners, placing them in isolation and refusing medical treatment until the strike ended. Eventually the strike petered out. As with so many other Palestinian issues, this action was largely ignored by the mainstream press.

This last year has seen Israelâ€™s position, tacitly supported by the U.S. government, strengthened against the Palestinians. Under cover of its promise of unilateral disengagement from Gaza, Israel continues to entrench itself in the West Bank and extends its system of suppression and control in which arrest and prison play such a key role.

For additional information:

Defence for Children International/Palestine Section, Research and International Advocacy Unit, RIA@dci-pal.org, www.dci-pal.org

Adameer Prisonersâ€™ Support and Human Rights Association, www.addameer.org, addameer@p-ol.com

Sumoud http://sumoud.tao.ca; Email sumoud@tao.ca

NOTES

1. William Rivers Pitt, â€œTorturing Children,â€ Truthout July 20, 2004.

2. Catherine Cook, â€œTorture of Iraqi Prisoners Spotlights Israeli Treatment of Palestinian Prisoners,â€ Information Brief # 106, May 11, 2004.

3. Defence for Children International (Palestine Section) Annual Review 2004.

4. DCI/PSâ€™s Legal department regularly visits prisons, detention and interrogation centres in the West Bank and in Israel to monitor prison conditions for children and intercede on their behalf with the Israeli prison administration.

#24 Ethiopian Indigenous Victims of Corporate and Government Resource Aspirations

Sources:

World War 4 Report, Issue 97, April 2004

â€œState Terror in Ethiopia: Another Secret War for Oil?â€

http://www.ww4report.com/97.html

http://www.allthingspass.com

Z Magazine Online, May 2004

Author: keith harmon snow

Faculty Evaluator: Tom Lough, Ph.D.

Student Researcher: Thedoria Grayson

According to a report by keith harmon snow, after conducting Field observations in January, the U.S.-based organizations Genocide Watch and Survivorâ€™s Rights International released a conclusive report on February 22, 2004. This report provides evidence that Ethiopian Peopleâ€™s Revolutionary Defense Front (EPRDF) soldiers and â€œHighlanderâ€ militias in the Anuak territory of Ethiopia have killed thousands of native civilians. The Highlanders are predominantly Tigray and Amhara peoples who resettled in Anuak territory in 1974. The Highlanders are on a quest to force the Anuak from the region. Ethiopia is the latest U.S. ally in the â€œWar on Terrorâ€ to turn its back on its own indigenous peoples. The Annuak territory is a zone coveted by corporate interests for its oil and gold. EPRDF soldiers and settlers from Ethiopian highlands initiated a campaign of massacres, repressions, and mass rape, deliberately targeting the Anuak minority.

According to Snow, the U.S. government was informed about the unfolding violence in the Gambella region as early as December 16, 2003. Massacres were reportedly ordered by the commander of the Ethiopian army in Gambella, Nagu Beyene, with the authorization of Gebrehad Barnabas, Regional Affairs Minister of the Ethiopian government.

According to Anuak sources relying on sympathetic oppositionists within the regime, the EPRDF plans to procure the petroleum of Gambella were laid out at a top-level cabinet meeting in Addis Ababa (the capital of Ethiopia) in September 2003. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi chaired the meeting, at which the militant ethnic cleansing of the Anuaks was reportedly openly discussed. December 13, 2003 marked the start of a coordinated military operation to systematically eliminate Anuaks. Sources from inside the military governmentâ€™s police and intelligence network say that the code name of the military operation was: â€œOPERATION SUNNY MOUNTAIN.â€

The killing of eight UN officials and Ethiopian government officials whose van was ambushed on December 13, 2003 sparked the recent conflict. Although there is no specific evidence about the ethnicity of the killers, the targets of the attacks have been mainly Anuaks. After this attack, EPRDF soldiers used automatic weapons and hand grenades, then attacked the Anuak villages, summarily executing civilians, burning dwellings (sometimes with people inside), and looting property. Some 424 Anuak people were reportedly killed, with over 200 more wounded. Numerous sources report that there have been regular massacres of the Anuak since 1980. Discrimination against the Anuak has been detailed in six reports published in the Cultural Survival Quarterly beginning in 1981(see e.g.: â€œOil Development in Ethiopia: A Threat to the Anuak of Gambella,â€ Issue 25.3, 2001). There is no evidence of previous communal violence between the two indigenous groups (Anuaks and the local Nuer) as was claimed and reported by the NYT and other media, and by the EPRDF government.

As of November 4, 2004, at least 1,500 and perhaps as many as 2,500 Anuak civilians have died in the recent fighting. Intellectuals, leaders, students and other educated classes have been intentionally targeted. Hundreds of people remain unaccounted for and many have mysteriously â€œdisappeared.â€ Thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of Anuak homes have reportedly been burned.

The Anuak men have been killed, arrested, or displaced, leaving thousands of women and children vulnerable. Anuak women and girls are routinely raped, gang-raped and kept as sexual slaves by EPRDF forces, often at gunpoint. Girls have been shot for resisting rape, and summary executions for girls held captive for prolonged periods as sexual slaves have been reported. Reports from non-Anuak police officials in Gambella indicate an average of up to seven rapes per day. Due to the isolation of women and girls in rural areas, rapes remain under-reported. Some 6,000 to 8,000 Anuak remain at refugee camps in Pochalla, Sudan, and there are an estimated 1,000 annual refugees in Kenya. In August 2004, approximately 25 percent (roughly 50,000 people) of Gambellaâ€™s population had been displaced.

To the Anuak and other indigenous peoples of southwestern Ethiopia, the government of Prime minister Meles Zenawi is a ruthless military dictatorship. Almost everyone links â€œthe problemâ€ to Gambellaâ€™s oil. â€œSince the problem, we are not able to farm or to fish,â€ said one Anuak survivor who was shot three times. He is shy, but he will show you where one bullet entered and exited his wrist. He was shot December 13, 2003â€”the day the EPRDF and local highlander militias launched their genocidal war on the Anuaks. â€œMany men ran away into the bushes and were killed since the problem began,â€ says one witness. â€œThey are raping many girls. They keep some women by force.â€ The violence has almost completely disrupted this yearâ€™s planting season, and people believe that famine in the coming winter months (October-March, 2005) will be exacerbated by the destruction of milling machines and food stores.

In August 2003, the U.S. committed $28,000,000 to international trade enhancements with Ethiopia. Beginning July 2003, forces from the Pentagonâ€™s Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) held a three-month bilateral training exercise with Ethiopian forces at the Hurso Training Camp, northwest of Dire Dawa. The U.S. Armyâ€™s 10th Mountain Division recently completed a three-month program to train an Ethiopian army division in counter-terrorism attacks. Operations are coordinated through the CJTF-HOA regional base in Djibouti, where the Halliburton subsidiary KBR is the prime contractor.

Because Ethiopia is considered to be an essential partner of the U.S. in its â€œWar on Terrorism,â€ the U.S. provided some $1,835,000 in International Military and Educational Training (IMET) to Ethiopia between 1995â€“2000. Some 115 Ethiopian officers were trained under the IMET program from 1991â€“2001. Approximately 4,000 Ethiopian soldiers have participated in IMET and Foreign Military Sales and Deliveries programs. The U.S. also equipped, trained, and supported Ethiopian troops under the Africa Regional Peacekeeping program. Ethiopia has remained a participant of the IMET program in 2000â€“2004. A U.S. AID representative asked Congress to approve some $80,000,000 in funding for Ethiopiaâ€™s programs in the Fiscal Year of 2005. Ethiopia was described as a â€œtop priorityâ€ of the Bush Administration.

In 2000, Texas-based Sicor Inc. signed a $1.4 billion dollar deal with Ethiopia for the â€œGazoilâ€ joint venture to exploit oil and gas in the southeast Ogaden Basin. Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, Texas is also involved in the Ogaden Basin through the subsidiary Ethiopia Hunt Oil Company. Hunt Oilâ€™s chairman of the board and CEO Ray L. Hunt is also director of Halliburton Company. U.S. Cal Tech International Corp. is also reportedly negotiating a joint venture with the China National Petroleum Corp. to operate in the same regions. The Anuak are also gold miners in the Gambella district. U.S. based Canyon Resources has gold operations in southern Ethiopia. The interest of multinational gold and oil corporations indicate alterior motives in the terror campaign against the Anuaks.

Anuak sources in Gambella state: â€œThe Anuak people have not been involved in the discussions about the oil, our leaders have not agreed on these projects, and they will not hire any Anuaks for these jobs. If any Anuaks say anything about the oil, he will be arrested.â€

Update by keith harmon snow: It is important to recognize that the U.S. public is subject to an ongoing institutionalization of â€œtruthâ€ and â€œrealityâ€ that is premised on total information warfare. This is nowhere so starkly evident as with the stereotypes, mythologies and deceptions doled out to the U.S. public on the subject of Africa (the Arab world, and all things Islamic, run a close second). This includes mainstream reportage, policy debates, scholarly journals, tabloids, radio shows, and print magazinesâ€”from WIRED to National Geographic. This is also evident in supposed â€œalternativeâ€ media sources like The Nation and films like Hotel Rwanda.

Alternative? To what? Virtually all available media fall on a spectrum that serves up topics and frameworks that are tolerated and allowed, where â€œhealthy debate,â€ â€œexposÃ©sâ€ and (perceived) â€œhostilityâ€ (to what people in other countries are calling EMPIRE), are even encouraged. Hence we have Seymour Hersh offering us revealing exposÃ©s on torture in Abu Ghraib, but saying nothing about the profits being made over the dead bodies due to U.S. sponsored covert operations and destabilization in Congo during and since the Clinton regime.

Nation editor Katrina Van de Heuvel will steer sharply away from any challenge to the â€œhumanitarianâ€ actions of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), a strong proponent of military interventionâ€”allied with the other two big humanitarian agencies CARE and Refugees Internationalâ€”in the recent massive lobbying effort to â€œstop genocideâ€ in Darfur, Sudan. Is there genocide in Darfur? If so, or even not so, why has it received overwhelming press attention while the Anuak genocide has received none? What about nearby Congo? And Rwanda?

Van de Heuvel has ties with Henry Kissinger, a member of an IRC board, and one of the few U.S. officials to be publicly labeled as a war criminal. The IRC is a powerful faction in Congo, Rwanda and Sudan, and the Congolese accused them of espionage. CAREâ€™s â€œpartnersâ€ include aerospace and defense corporation Lockheed-Martin, who is also a major underwriter of Seymour Hershâ€™s regular print venue, the war advocacy journal Atlantic Monthly.

A truly â€œinvestigativeâ€ journalist might hack through the propaganda of Hotel Rwanda to get to United Artists parent company Metro Goldwyn Meyer, whose directors, not surprisingly, given what the film does not tell you about the U.S.-sponsored invasion of Rwanda (1990â€“1994), include current United Technologies director and U.S. General (Ret.) Alexander Haig. Recall that â€œIâ€™m in charge hereâ€ Al Haig served under a Hollywood actor named Ronald Reagan. Hotel Rwanda took off from the now celebrated but wholly mythologized book We Regret To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed by Philip Gourevitch, the New Yorkerâ€™s premier Africanist, and whose brother-in-law, Jamie Rubin, was Madeleine Albrightâ€™s leading man. The Nation runs the standard nonsense on Rwanda, usually by Victoria Britain. Another pro-military interventionist on Darfur, Samantha Power could surely satisfy The Nation, given her selective and patriotic journalism on Rwanda and the Balkans, for which she won a Pulitzer.

Behind the mass hysteria whipped up in the post-September 11th America are the dirty little and not-so-little but secret wars whipped up in defense of predatory capitalism and empire in â€œuncivilizedâ€ and â€œsavageâ€ places like Djibouti, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo and (Gambella) Ethiopia.

By February 21, 2002, the U.S. DOD had already purchased 79 RQ-1 Predators from General Atomics, for a per unit price of about $7 million, or some $553 million dollars. â€œState Terror in Ethiopiaâ€ was the first report, and WW4 Report the first venue, to illuminate the U.S. military alliance with the Ethiopian regime and the regional base of U.S. covert operations in Hurso, Ethiopia as well as the presence of RQ-1 Predator Drones being operated over the entire Horn region by the Central Intelligence Agency. Smith College students recently working to â€œstop genocideâ€ in Darfur held a letter-writing campaign demanding that George Bush authorize that unmanned Predator dronesâ€”impersonal, indiscriminate killing robotsâ€”be launched against Arabs on horses, and other â€œundefinedâ€ targets, in Darfur.

It takes more than one party to wage a war. From Chad, Uganda and Ethiopia come weapons and logistical support for the enemies of the Islamic regime in Khartoum. At the same time, the Bush gang has reportedly â€œalliedâ€ with the Sudan government in its â€œwar on terrorâ€â€”if we believe the Ken Silverstein â€œexposÃ©â€ in the L.A. Times (which is merely being expedient in its truth-telling). Off the agenda are any discussions of the U.S. regimes of terror in Uganda or Cameroon, for example, or U.S. support for the Sudan Peopleâ€™s Liberation Army and other warring militias and factions in Darfur, Chad, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Congo.

Like nearby Chad, Ethiopia has become a favored territory from which transnational corporate interests can be served by launching clandestine terror operations against Islamic governments, Al Queda phantoms, and other hostile enemies. The latter category, of course, includes Arabs on horseback, machete-wielding Hutus, Mai-Mai â€œwearing bathroom fixturesâ€ on their heads, innocent men, women and children all over Africa, and, of course, the Anuaks of Ethiopia who, like the Ogonis in Nigeria and the Fur of Darfur, have the audacity to be living over someone elseâ€™s oil.

Shortly after â€œState Terror in Ethiopiaâ€ appeared in WW4 Report and Z Magazine, Marc Lacey, Nairobi Bureau Chief for the New York Times, ran some damage control, and reported from Gambella with a nasty little blame-the-victims story that deflected attention from the undesirable details: â€œAmid Ethiopiaâ€™s Strife, a Bathing Spot and Peaceâ€ (New York Times, 6/11/04). There was hardly a word about oil or U.S. interests, and Lacey framed the story to suggest that peace had returned to Gambella, an area rife with ancient tribal animosity, he declared, where the Anuaks â€œonce went naked and ate rats.â€ (Curiously, not one New York Times link to this story is active today, perhaps because it has been widely noted for its racism, and so it is being electronically erased.)

Doug McGill of the McGill Report has done some wonderful and consistent work to report on the Anuak story. World War 4 Report also published a second follow-up story titled â€œEthnic Cleansing in Ethiopia.â€ Soon after this appeared, Human Rights Watch finally published a major report on the Anuak genocide based on the field investigations â€œToday is the Day of Killing Anuaksâ€ and â€œOperation Sunny Mountain?â€ (undertaken for Survivorâ€™s Rights International and Genocide Watch by this author, as an unpaid volunteer). While their researcher received a copy of â€œOperation Sunny Mountain?â€ several months prior to its formal release and before traveling to Ethiopia, Human Rights Watch never cited their sources or contacts.

The U.S.-supported regime of Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia is going to fall, imminently, as widespread domestic dissent and protest, which remain underreported, further escalate. June 2005 saw massive government repression, troops firing on crowds, and torture spreading across Ethiopia after the people protested obvious election-rigging (sanctioned by Jimmy Carter and election monitors). Ethiopiaâ€™s secret U.S.-sponsored war (2000) against Eritrea has destabilized the border region, causing untold death and despair. Murder, extra-judicial execution, rape, disappearances, arrest and imprisonment of Anuaks, Oromos, Nuers and other indigenous Ethiopian people continue. What makes â€œState Terror in Ethiopiaâ€ so poignant is its sharp juxtaposition to the stories of genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur, which received widespread attention, and to Congo, which is mostly off the media agenda.

With Darfur, what is really at issue is not genocide, and it is not about â€œhumanitarianâ€ anything, or there wouldnâ€™t be so many people dead alreadyâ€”and still dying. It is about regime change, and some people will do anything to get us to support that. In Congo, the death toll has struck seven million since the U.S. invasion began, and the war rages on while both Clinton and Bush factions profit from diamond and gold and other hundreds-of-multimillion-dollars-a-month material thefts. Next to the holy wars of Congo and Darfur, the Anuaks are a mere thorn in the side of Empire. Such is the political economy of genocide.

#25 Homeland Security Was Designed to Fail

Sources:

Mother Jones, September/October 2004

Title: â€œRed Alertâ€

Author: Matthew Brzezinski

NPR, September 24, 2004

Title: â€œFortress America: On the Front Lines of Homeland Securityâ€ (an interview with Matthew Brzezinski)

Author Matthew Brzezinski

Faculty Evaluators: Greg and Meri Storino

Student Researcher: Joey Tabares

It was billed as Americaâ€™s frontline defense against terrorism. But badly under-funded, crippled by special interests, and ignored by the White House, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been relegated to bureaucratic obscurity. Unveiled on March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security had been touted as the Bush Administrationâ€™s bold response to the new threats facing America in the post-Cold War world of global terrorism. It is currently composed of 22 formerly separate federal agencies and it boasts 186,200 employees. Its operations are funded by a budget of nearly $27 billion.

There are 15,000 industrial plants in the United States that produce toxic chemicals. According to the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), about 100 of these plants could endanger up to a million lives with poisonous clouds of ammonia, chlorine, or carbon disulfide that could be released into the atmosphere over densely populated areas by a terror attack. Unprotected chemical plants are possible candidates for future attacks by terrorists. These are some of the most vulnerable pieces of infrastructure in America.

Following 9/11 there was a big push to increase security at all chemical plants in the United States. Democrats put forth a Chemical Security Act, the purpose of which was to codify parameters for site security, ensure safe transport of toxic materials, and prevent further accidents from happening. But Republicans defeated the bill after oil companies pumped millions of dollars into lobbying campaigns to stop it.

Matthew Brzezinskiâ€™s article in Mother Jones asserts that President Bush doesnâ€™t put much importance, if any at all, on Homeland Security reports. Security spending has risen just 4 percent since 9/11, and most of that increase was only to cover higher insurance programs. There are many chemical plants that have no fencing requirements, cameras, and no guards. The article points out the spending needed to insure the safety of U.S. citizens and compares it (unfavorably) to the amount spent in Iraq over the same time period.

Aside from being hamstrung by its reluctant architects, DHS simply has not been able to compete with Iraq in the battle for resources. With the Presidentâ€™s tax cuts trimming government revenues, and budget deficits reaching levels not seen since the Vietnam War, money is tight for programs the White House does not see as top priorities. The truth of the matter is that Homeland Security is very much a shoestring operationâ€”so much so that worried Democrats in Congress keep trying to throw more money at it.

Brzezinski, recent author of â€œFortress Americaâ€ and former Wall Street correspondent, suggests the Department of Homeland Security needs a serious reassessment of its goals and operations to better protect Americans. He says the White House has decided that the Homeland Security intelligence unit should rank lower than the FBI and the CIA. Seven Republican Senators that had previously endorsed the Chemical Security Act later withdrew their support. $5.7 million in contributions from the petrochemical campaign (led by the American Petroleum Institute) helped to ensure that Republicans took the Senate in the 2002 midterm elections and that the Chemical Security Act die out. People opposing the act emphasized the economic impact of the Security Act. The argument was that Chlorine and its derivatives went into products that account for 45 percent of the nations GDP, and reductions to its production would hurt the economy.

Three years after 9/11 almost anybody can still gain entry into thousands of chemical sites across the country. If a factory spends lots of money on security spending upgrades, its products canâ€™t compete with other factories that spend nothing. Only legislation can level the playing field.

The failure of the mainstream media to acknowledge the fact that Homeland Security has been a complete washout further signifies the cozy relationship it enjoys with the halls of power. Protection of the homeland has been an area where the president has received consistently high marks from the countryâ€”ostensibly because this is the one area where he has stayed strong and focused. It would have been helpful for the country to know if this wasnâ€™t true.

References:

Judy Clark, Oil and Gas Journal, June 23, 2003, â€œGovernment, Industry Forge Partnerships for Security Enhancement.â€

Primedia, August 1, 2003, â€œAn Overlooked Vulnerability?â€

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

Project Censored – Sonoma State University

1801 East Cotati Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928

(707) 664-2500

censored@sonoma.edu

Comments Off on Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006 · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

CANDIDATES: WAIT TO CONCEDE!

Posted in '06 Election, Black Box (Electronic) Voting, General, Parallel Elections, TAKE ACTION!, Video on August 22nd, 2006

Don’t be a Sitting Duck for the Secret Ballot

Verify Election Results

Run Parallel Elections

Collect Voter Affidavits

CONGRESS! BAN Voting by Secret Ballot, Voting Machine, Internet, Absentee, Early, or Carrier Pigeon.

Others’ videos: GOT DEMOCRACY, Help America Vote On Paper, (from eon3), The Right To Count, Invisible Ballots(2004), VoterGate, The Big Fix 2000

another must watch: 911 Cover Up

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=genre%3Adocumentary&hl=en

“...our elections are easy to rig because of how we vote. It wasnâ€™t always this way. Prior to the Civil War, voting was a completely observable process. It was only after the Civil War, as the right to vote expanded to African Americans, that the voting process itself began to recede from public view and meaningful oversight. It started with absentee voting by the military in the 1870â€™s, the use of secret ballots in the 1880â€™s, and voting by machine in the 1890â€™s. Today, approximately 30% of all voting is conducted early or by absentee, 95% of all votes are processed by machines, and 100% of all ballots are secret and anonymous.” Lynn Landes

PARTIAL “The Fix Is In” TRANSCRIPT BELOW:

(VIDEO CLIP) “The election is over. We won.” (Reporter’s voice – “How do you know that?”) “It’s all over, but the counting. And we’ll take care of the counting.”

That was Republican Congressman Peter King of New York. He made those remarks just BEFORE the 2004 presidential election.

Hi. Iâ€™m Lynn Landes. Iâ€™m a freelance journalist and publisher of the website, EcoTalk.org. I want to thank you for taking the time to watch this brief video.

Our elections are in deep trouble. Many Americans no longer believe that voting results are accurate. More and more voters are learning first-hand that voting machines are completely unreliable and that many of our election officials are untrustworthy. But whatâ€™s at the core of this crisis? The secret ballot.

Any ballot in America can be easily miscounted either by accident or design, regardless of whether itâ€™s a paper ballot or electronic vote. That’s because modern Americans vote by secret ballot. A secret ballot is an anonymous ballot, which means it canâ€™t be traced to the voter. Weâ€™ve been told thatâ€™s a good deal for us, that it protects us against harassment and vote selling. But, itâ€™s a much better deal for those who want to rig elections and not get caught. Itâ€™s time we scrap the secrecy and go public with our votes.

In this video youâ€™ll hear a startling admission from a voting company representative, I offer some practical advice on how to verify or challenge election returns through the collection of voter affidavits, And I make the case for a return to total transparency in voting, what I call â€œOpen Votingâ€

The fact is our elections are easy to rig because of how we vote. It wasnâ€™t always this way. Prior to the Civil War, voting was a completely observable process. It was only after the Civil War, as the right to vote expanded to African Americans, that the voting process itself began to recede from public view and meaningful oversight. It started with absentee voting by the military in the 1870â€™s, the use of secret ballots in the 1880â€™s, and voting by machine in the 1890â€™s. Today, approximately 30% of all voting is conducted early or by absentee, 95% of all votes are processed by machines, and 100% of all ballots are secret and anonymous.

Worse yet, most of the voting process in America has been privatized and outsourced to a handful of domestic companies and multi-national corporations. One company, Sequoia, is foreign-owned. And just two companies (ES&S and Diebold) process 80% of all votes in the United States. These companies make, sell, and service both ballot scanners and touchscreen machines.

Although most of the debate over security issues has been framed to target suspicion on outside hackers and backdoors, it is in fact company insiders who have the keys to the front door and complete access to the electronic ballot box. For all practical purposes, voting machine companies are self-regulating, and as such, their employees are in a perfect position to rig elections nationwide. But even if these companies were regulated, it is virtually impossible to guard against insider vote fraud, as you will see.

The following are video clips of an examination of the Danaher voting system by Pennsylvania state authorities in November of 2005.

(VIDEO CLIP)

Notice, the Danaher representative assured state officials that the company would not be able to rig elections because their programmers would have to know well in advance all the candidates names and their positions on the ballot. But thatâ€™s ludicrous. Thereâ€™s nothing to stop programmers from using secret company code to manipulate votes for a particular candidate. This can be done while making a service call before, during, or after an election. It could be accomplished remotely via the Internet, modem, or through wireless technology. And it can be done without the knowledge of election officials.

But, setting that issue aside, what if it is not a specific candidate the company wants to rig an election for, but a particular party instead?

(VIDEO CLIP)

The Danaher representative just admitted that their computer program includes a party identifier next to each candidateâ€™s name. Therefore, the company can easily write a program that shifts a certain percentage of votes from one partyâ€™s candidates to another party before the machines ever leave the factory floor. That shift could make the difference in tight races.

Most voting machine companies have close ties to the Republican Party and most voting machine irregularities appear to favor Republicans, but I must emphasize, that is not always the case. Even in Republican and Democratic primaries, where the race is between members of the same party, voting machines are exhibiting suspicious irregularities. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party and the Green Partyâ€™s measured response to the gravity of this situation makes one wonder.

Pending congressional legislation that would require ballot printers for paperless voting machines is a woefully inadequate response to the threat these machines represent, as a long history of equipment malfunctions and failures can attest. But, even more disturbing are the actions of some candidates, particularly Democratic candidates, who are conceding extremely close races without waiting for all the absentee and provisional ballots to be counted. It appears that the fix may be in across the political spectrum.

Whatâ€™s the solution? Perhaps voters should support candidates that have no party affiliation. But, regarding the voting process itself, Congress should return to a policy of open and transparent elections and ban voting by machine, absentee, early, and by secret ballot. Until that day, we must go public with our votes. We must provide candidates with hard evidence of how we voted so that election results can be verified, or challenged, if necessary. Exit polls do not constitute hard evidence. Only voter affidavits can provide that. Itâ€™s time voters sign up and be counted.

Specifically, candidates or activists need to conduct a Parallel Election, of sorts. They need to collect affidavits from voters or, at the very least, get signed statements that include the voterâ€™s name, signature, address, and for whom they voted. These can be collected in three ways: 1) on Election Day as voters leave the polls, 2) door to door after the election, or 3) by asking voters, particularly absentee voters, to mail-in affidavits or signed statements immediately after they mail in their ballot. If manpower is a problem, then target only a few polling places or precincts. Keep in mind that a list of those who voted is a matter of public record. Most precincts have about 500 voters and most voters donâ€™t vote.

So, for many races weâ€™re not talking about contacting a lot of people. Naturally, you want to first contact voters that belong to the same party as your candidate. Depending on your results, that may be sufficient to challenge election returns. You donâ€™t need 100% participation from voters. Any number of signatures collected that exceeds the official vote count is an indicator of a miscount.

Something similar to this idea was put into practice last winter in North Carolina. A Republican candidate gathered more than 1400 affidavits from voters in precincts where voting machines malfunctioned and lost thousands of votes. On the basis of those affidavits his Democratic opponent conceded.

Last year I wrote my first article calling for Parallel Elections. See – http://www.ecotalk.org/ParallelElections.htm A few activists around the country did just that. On the basis of signed statements collected at 11 polling places in a California election, a recount was granted. Unfortunately by the time the recount was held, there was plenty of opportunity for election officials to minimize the miscount. So, be careful about asking for a recount when whatâ€™s actually needed is a new election thatâ€™s free from voting machines at the very least. And remember, even a new election needs a Parallel Election to serve as a check.

If no one is organizing a Parallel Election, then voters can on their on initiative send the candidate of their choice a card or letter indicating that they voted for them. That might spur more candidates to action. You may not win an election challenge in a court of law, but the court of public opinion is more important in the long run.

If we want a real democracy we must take our elections out of the corporate boardroom and back into the public square. We cannot continue to hide behind the secret ballot. Remember John Hancockâ€™s large and flamboyant signature on the Declaration of Independence? He did that in the face of certain hardship and possible death. Itâ€™s now our turn to sign up and be counted.

Iâ€™m Lynn Landes. And thanks for watching.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Is there any evidence that voting machines have been rigged? Yes. Lots of it. An extensive history of voting machine irregularities can be found in the following:

Election 2004-Voters Unite.org
The Conyers Report – Read Excerpts
Black Box Voting, Ballot-Tampering in the 21st Century (Chapter II) by Bev Harris (2003)
Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying, by Dr. Roy Saltman (1988)
my own list
Check out Florida in 2004 – does anyone really believe that so many Democrats crossed over to vote for George Bush?

Has anyone confessed to rigging voting machines? Yes.

http://www.justaflyonthewall.com/ Also see: Programmer Built Vote Rigging Prototype at Florida Congressman’s Request– Clint Curtis affidavit
Conyers Report excerpts – how Triad technicians reset computers to cheat a recount of votes
Cincinnati Bell security supervisors ordered wire-taps installed on county computers before elections in the late 1970s and early 1980s that could have allowed vote totals to be altered, a former Bell employee says in a sworn court document. Leonard Gates, a 23-year Cincinnati Bell employee until he was fired in 1986, claims in a deposition filed Thursday in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court to have installed the wire-taps. (1989) Pandora’s Black Box & http://www.votefraud.org/expert_strunk_report.htm (contains case number)

The easiest way to rig elections nationwide is for voting machine company-insiders to program the firmware (permanently installed software in touchscreens and ballot scanners) to favor one political party over another. That way they don’t need to know the candidates’ names nor their position on the ballot. They can even rig the top of the ticket only, in which case the winning candidate can claim a crossover vote in a opposing party’s district, as may have happened in Florida 2004 – See Lynn’s data table

Don’t some voters need these machines, such as non-English language voters and disabled voters? No. Voters who want a ballot in their own language should be able to order such a ballot in advance of any election. Secondly, voting machines present the same violation of voting rights for disabled voters. And contrary to popular belief, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) does not require election officials to purchase electronic voting machines. Besides, anecdotal evidence suggests that these machines are difficult for the disabled to use. Election officials and voting machine companies admit that it takes the sight-impaired voters ten times longer to use a touchscreen machine than able-bodied voters. However, there is a way for the sight-impaired to vote privately and independently. They can use tactile paper ballot with audio assistance. Tactile ballots are used around the world and in some states such as Rhode Island. Unfortunately, many disabled voters are unaware of these kinds of ballots. That may not be an accident. Two organizations for the blind, The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) and The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), are ardent supporters of paperless touchscreen voting machines. They also have received over $1 million dollars from the voting machine industry, according to news reports.

Can you conduct Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) using paper ballots? First, I do not support IRV or proportional voting because they are unnecessary, complicated, and cannot be easily observed. But, yes, Britain, Ireland, and Australia have used paper ballots to conduct Instant Run-Off Voting. However, some advocates of IRV are aggressively promoting the idea that voting machines are necessary. Regarding proportional voting, it is the wrong answer to the obvious problem presented by “at-large” elections where the winners take all. Instead, political entities (such as townships) should be divided into voting districts (which many already are), thereby allowing the development of Democratic, Republican, etc. strongholds which could result in more equitable representation.

Aren’t machines faster than a hand count and isn’t that important? They should be, but often they’re not. Machines breakdown routinely, thereby taking longer to report election results. In Maryland in the 2004 election, 9% of machines observed by a voting rights group, broke down. Essentially, a speedy hand count is based on a sufficient number of poll workers per number of registered voters and the length of the ballot. Canada uses 2 election officials per approximately 500 registered voters. In addition, election officials don’t need to depend on volunteers. Citizens can be drafted to work at the polls on Election Day, as is done routinely with jury duty. The right to direct access to a ballot and meaningful public oversight of the process supersedes the perceived convenience of voting machines.

What about states that have really long ballots, including initiatives and referendum? Most countries keep their ballots brief. For instance, in America state and local judges could be elected by legislative bodies instead of the voters. But, there are other issues. The initiative/referendum movement is called Direct Democracy. However, it is really an end-run around the legislature. Some activists think this is a good idea, but others disagree. California’s ballot has become a nightmare. Clearly, those with the money get their issues on the ballot. And consider this. The initiative/referendum movement allows those who control the voting machines to also control which candidates win and what legislation gets passed.

Aren’t voting machines more accurate than a hand count? There is no way to know. There is no way to test the accuracy of voting machines during the actual voting process on Election Day. Citizens vote in secret. The machines count those votes in secret. If ballot scanners are used, then election officials can run an audit to check accuracy. But, few states require audits. Even with an audit, election officials decide where and when the audits occur. Public participation and oversight is not meaningful. Any test done prior or after an election cannot ensure that during the election the machine did not manipulate votes, either by accident or design. The accuracy of voting machines is often correlated with the number of overvotes and undervotes it records. One could have nothing to do with the other. There is no way to know the intention of the voter, or if a voting machine is filling in votes that the voter deliberately left blank. Although a lever and touchscreen machine can prevent overvotes, all in all, “The difference between the best performing and worst performing technologies is as much as 2 percent of ballots cast. Surprisingly, paper ballotsâ€”the oldest technologyâ€”show the best performance.” This is the finding of two Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) political science professors, Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere and Dr. Charles Stewart III, in a September 25, 2002 study entitled, Voting Technology and Uncounted Votes in the United States.

Which is more expensive, voting by machine or paper? For legitimate elections, expense can never be a consideration. That said, paper is cheap and requires no special servicing, storage, or trained personnel, while a single voting machines can cost thousands of dollars and require servicing, storage, and trained personnel. Furthermore, election officials never need to rely on volunteers to staff the polls. Citizens can always be drafted as they are for jury duty, at little or no cost to the tax payer.

Shouldn’t we allow absentee voting for overseas military at least? No. Again, think in terms of jury duty. There are certain rights and responsibilities of citizenship that require your personal appearance. In addition, the polling place provides the voter protection from intimidation and allows poll watchers the opportunity to detect vote fraud or system failure.

If someone wins by a large enough margin, isn’t that a sign that the election wasn’t rigged? No. It only stands to reason that if someone is going to rig an election, it will be done by a sufficient number of votes to avoid triggering a recount. Otherwise, this could happen: In August of 2002, in Clay county Kansas, Jerry Mayo lost a close race for county commissioner, garnering 48% of the vote, but a hand recount revealed May won by a landslide, earning 76% of the vote.

If the voting machines are being used at my polling precinct, is it better to vote by absentee? Most absentee ballots are not counted by hand, but instead scanned by computers. The same corporations (ES&S, Diebold, Sequoia, etc) that dominate the touchscreen market, also control the ballot scanners. In addition, some counties, like King County Washington, have even outsourced the mailing of their absentee ballots to private industry.

Can’t elections be rigged by stuffing ballot boxes, as well? Yes, but it is a detectable kind of vote fraud, whereas voting by machine, early or absentee is nearly impossible to detect. The problem of stuffed ballot boxes may be more fiction than fact. In his book, The Right To Vote, The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, Alexander Keyssar, of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, writes, “…recent studies have found that claims of widespread corruption were grounded almost entirely in sweeping, highly emotional allegations backed by anecdotes and little systematic investigation or evidence. Paul Kleppner, among others, has concluded that what is most striking is not how many, but how few documented cases of electoral fraud can be found. Most elections appear to have been honestly conducted: ballot-box stuffing, bribery, and intimidation were the exception, not the rule.”

Doesn’t the federal government regulate the voting machine industry? No. There is no federal agency charged with regulatory oversight of the elections industry. There are no restrictions on who can count our votes. Anyone from anywhere can count our votes. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) doesn’t even publish a complete list of all the voting technology companies whose business it is to count Americans’ votes. see: voting companies info

Can a voting machine company be owned by foreigners and run by felons? Yes. Sequoia is the third largest voting machine company in America and is owned by a British-based company, De La Rue. Diebold is the second largest voting machine company in the country. It counts about 35% of all votes in America. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states. Jeff Dean, Diebold’s Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebold’s central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree. Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a “high degree of sophistication” to evade detection over a period of 2 years. see: fraud & irregularities

Isn’t that a threat to national security? Yes.

What was the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) all about? It established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to distribute billions of dollars to the states to upgrade their voting systems, but failed to mandate any meaningful standards. http://www.eac.gov/law_ext.asp

Doesn’t the federal government certify the voting machines? No. The federal government has a loose set of technical guidelines for voting machines that are voluntary and may be actually harmful. The Federal Voting Systems Standards (FVSS) used by the three NASED’s approved Independent Test Authorities (ITA) to “certify” companies are outmoded guidelines and voluntary, and not all states have adopted them. According to industry observers, the FVSS guidelines allow one in ten machines to fail. There is no enforcement of these guidelines, such as they are.

Who, then, certifies the nation’s voting machines? The FEC coordinates with the industry-funded National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), a private non-profit group, to have machines inspected certified by industry-funded private contractors. NASED selects and approves the testing laboratories. Only prototypes of the machines and software are available for a very superficial inspection. The inspection is conducted by three private companies who are not themselves subject to any regulation. Technical Issues & Standards “An unelected person named R. Doug Lewis runs a private non-profit organization called “The Election Center.”

Lewis is possibly the most powerful man in the U.S., influencing election procedures and voting systems, yet he is vague about his credentials and no one seems to be quite sure who hired him or how he came to oversee such vast electoral functions. Lewis organized the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS, now heavily funded by voting machine vendors); he also organized the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) and, through them, Lewis told (author Bev) Harris he helps certify the certifiers.” “Wyle Laboratories is the most talked-about voting machine certifier, probably because it is the biggest, but in fact, Wyle quit certifying voting machine software in 1996. It does test hardware: Can you drop it off a truck? Does it stand up to rain? Software testing and certification is done by Shawn Southworth. When Ciber quit certifying in 1996, it was taken over by Nichols Research, and Southworth was in charge of testing. Nichols Research stopped doing the testing, and it was taken over by PSInet, where Southworth did the testing. PSInet went under, and testing functions were taken over by Metamore, where Southworth did the testing. Metamore dumped it, and it was taken over by Ciber, where Southworth does the testing. Here is a photo of Shawn Southworth:” scoop.co.nz

WOULD YOU TRUST THIS MAN WITH YOUR VOTE?

meet Shawn Southworth

the industry guy who “certifies” America’s voting technology

17. But, wouldn’t it take a vast number of people to rig an election? Not with today’s technology. One programmer working at either ES&S or Diebold could write code that could manipulate votes across the country. If a voting machine has computer components, it can be rigged or accessed through the firmware, software, wireless, modem, telephone, and simple electricity. Main tabulating computers can be rigged in a similar fashion. Lever voting machine are also easily rigged, although it would be more labor intensive. Still, anyone with the keys to the county warehouse where the machines are stored could rig the machines. Labels can be switched, gears shaved, odometers preset, or printouts preprinted.

18. Can’t we detect vote fraud through exit polls? Exit polling is conducted by one organization that is hired by the major news networks and the Associated Press. Since they first started “projecting” election night winners in 1964, the major news networks have never provided any ‘hard’ evidence that they actually conducted any exit polls, at all. The late authors of the book, VoteScam: The Stealing of America, concluded that some of the major news networks, including the polling organization that they hire for election night reporting, have been complicit in vote fraud. see: exit polls

19. If someone wins by a large enough margin, isn’t that a sign that the election wasn’t rigged? No. It only stands to reason that if someone is going to rig an election, it will be done by a sufficient number of votes to avoid triggering a recount. Otherwise, this could happen: In August of 2002, in Clay county Kansas, Jerry Mayo lost a close race for county commissioner, garnering 48% of the vote, but a hand recount revealed May won by a landslide, earning 76% of the vote. http://www.ecotalk.org/BevHarrisBook2.pdf (page 45)

20. Aren’t you just a conspiracy theorist? No. In the words of Greg Palast, “I’m a conspiracy expert.” Election officials have outsourced and privatized a uniquely public function. Corporations have gained near total control over the process of voting. Corporations also control the process of reporting exit polls. Both processes are completely non-transparent.

by Lynn Landes for EcoTalk.org

Comments Off on CANDIDATES: WAIT TO CONCEDE! · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

A Full Recount Would Show that LÃ³pez Obrador Won Mexicoâ€™s Presidency by More than One Million Votes

Posted in General, International on August 2nd, 2006

The Tip of the Iceberg of the Crimes Committed by Mexican Electoral Authorities Is the Fraudulent Vote Count of 2006

By Al Giordano

Part II of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin

July 8, 2006

Commercial Media organizations are reporting that Felipe CalderÃ²n won Sundayâ€™s presidential election by 0.58 percent of the vote and will govern Mexico for the next six years, beginning on December 1.

It would not be the first time that the Commercial Media has been wrong.

Many of those reports have claimed that Wednesdayâ€™s first official count of precinct results in Mexico â€“ 130,000 pieces of paper that claim to represent the vote tallies â€“ was a â€œrecount.â€

It would not be the first time that lazy â€œpack journalismâ€ got a major international story wrong.

The truth: No recount occurred on Wednesday, or before, or since. What occurred â€“ we repeat â€“ was only the first official count of precinct tallies.

A Narco News investigation has found that in the small sample of precincts â€“ less than one percent â€“ where a recount was allowed, the shift in numbers away from CalderÃ³n was so drastic that, if recounts of all the ballots followed the same trend, the official results would invert and AndrÃ©s Manuel LÃ³pez Obrador would become the clear winner of the presidency by more than one million votes:

The Million-Vote Fraud

Part I of this series documented the election night dishonesty by Mexicoâ€™s Federal Electoral Institute (IFE, in its Spanish initials) when it withheld 3.3 million votes (about eight percent of the total) from public view while claiming that its Preliminary Elections Results Program (PREP) had tabulated 98.5 percent of the vote.

Our report then showed that the inclusion of 2.5 million of those votes â€“ when, under significant public pressure, IFE finally disclosed them â€“ significantly reduced the agencyâ€™s original claim that CalderÃ³n had won by 377,000 votes: that total fell to a 257,000 vote margin in one swoop. Wednesdayâ€™s first official count reduced that margin by another 13,000 votes, even as the IFE refused to conduct hand-counts of more than 99 percent of the ballots.

An electoral arbiter acting in bad faith, with an interest in preventing an accurate tally, would, in response to such hemorrhaging (the daily freefall, since Monday, of CalderÃ³nâ€™s alleged margin of victory), act hastily in a manner that would prevent transparent completion of a careful count.

On Thursday, in such haste, IFE chairman Luis Carlos Ugalde inexplicably usurped the legal role reserved for the judicial electoral tribunal (known as the Trife), by rushing to declare CalderÃ³n the official victor.

As Mexicoâ€™s leading newsweekly, Proceso, concluded from its own investigations:

â€œThe decision by the IFE to leave the announcement of its PREP results in suspense, in spite of the fact it could have done so before midnight on Sunday, confirms that this agency has been an ally of the federal government in its goal of avoiding, at all costs, the arrival of AndrÃ©s Manuel LÃ³pez Obrador to the presidency.â€

For authentic journalists, Mexicoâ€™s post-electoral conflict is one of those gigantic news stories that happens few times in the course of a lifetime: Not merely a story about how a state-of-the-art electoral fraud was perpetrated in a major country of 100 million people, but, more historically, the story of how that fraud will be laid to waste.

This news story will unfold for weeks, probably for months, before it is resolved. The first battle is already underway: the struggle to count the votes.

It is objectively false to report, as major news organizations have done, that there was a â€œrecountâ€ of votes on Wednesday. There was no such thing. What occurred was the first actual counting of reported precinct results, something that occurs days after every election, and the results demonstrate the overwhelming evidence that a full recount is necessary in order to achieve an accurate result.

On Wednesday, there was partial recount of less than one percent of the ballots: a partial recount that lowered CalderÃ³nâ€™s supposed margin of victory by more than six percentage points, or more than 13,000 votes. In the context of the fraudulent results discovered in this sample of recounted ballots, it can therefore be projected that a recount of just 18.7 percent of the ballots would tie the race. A full recount â€“ if the votes in the ballot boxes have not been tampered with or disappeared (as has already occurred in various parts of the Republic when marked ballots have been discovered in municipal dumps and garbage cans on the streets) â€“ will show a victory by candidate AndrÃ©s Manuel LÃ³pez Obrador by more than one million votes: 1,056, 900, more closely estimated.

LÃ³pez Obradorâ€™s campaign is, in fact, seeking a recount of only those precincts where it found indications of fraud: a lot of them: 43,000, more or less. This extrapolation â€“ if those precincts are counted vote-by-vote â€“ would give his candidacy a victory of 243,000 votes.

Is it any wonder, then, that CalderÃ³n, his National Action Party, and Mexicoâ€™s Federal Electoral Institute (IFE, in its Spanish initials), oppose and resist a full or partial recount even at the cost of their own legitimacy? (In spite of their legaloide claims that â€œthe lawâ€ doesnâ€™t allow a full recount, Articles 41 and 99 of the Mexican Constitution â€“ we will translate the relevant constitutional passages in this report â€“ do not just allow a full recount: they require it.)

The true and legal victor in last Sundayâ€™s elections, former Mexico City Governor LÃ³pez Obrador, will make his case today, Saturday, to his supporters and to the nation of how exactly this election fraud was carried out against him and them. He will have to do so against the gale-force winds of a boycott of the true facts by much of the mass media (especially the Mexican television duopoly of Televisa and TV Azteca), and the complicity of the countryâ€™s electoral authorities in the maintenance of their own false decrees. He will begin this daunting task today, Saturday, at 5 p.m. Central Time, directly to a multitude of his supporters that he has called to the Mexico City ZÃ³calo â€“ the Mexican town square in front of the National Palace â€“ at an event which he has titled an â€œinformational assembly.â€

Despite the newsworthiness of the moment, even its value as a â€œratings booster,â€ this opening statement by the prosecution will not likely be televised. Still, the facts will travel to every corner of the country and world by word-of-mouth, organization, and, significantly, via the Internet, which has an important role to play in this chapter of history.

Many observers have compared the post-electoral conflict in Mexico 2006 to that of 2000 in the United States. While there are indeed parallels (as well as distinctions) to be drawn, there is a very important difference in the equation, and it is societal: That part of the electorate in the United States that was robbed did not see any way to fight and overturn the fraud, or simply was too gullible or afraid to do so. In Mexico, however, the path exists, a critical mass of the Mexican populace understands exactly what was done to them and is ready to assume the ultimate risks to overturn the crime. At stake for global capital and its increasingly simulated â€œelectionâ€ processes not just in Mexico but throughout the planet is the manufactured belief that nothing can be done. As occurred a century ago, with the Mexican revolution of 1910, Mexico is on the verge of, as Zapatista Subcomandante Marcos has often said, â€œamazing the world again.â€

Guanajuato as Florida

The north-central Mexican state of Guanajuato â€“ home turf of President Vicente Fox and an importantÃsimo electoral base for his and CalderÃ³nâ€™s PAN party â€“ is where official results from the stateâ€™s 6,122 precincts (less than five percent of the national vote) gave CalderÃ³n a margin of more than 700,000 votes. That is to say, even according the highly suspicious official results, LÃ³pez Obrador won the rest of the country by almost half a million votes. This was a state where electoral fraud was carried out â€“ and continues to be covered up â€“ on a systematic basis.

There, in Guanajuato, the official results from 640 of those 6,122 precincts show discrepancies and irregularities which include more votes cast than are voters in the precinct, more votes cast for CalderÃ³n than votes cast in the precinct, electoral officials that refused to count the votes in public, discrepancies between the actual result and the reported result, missing or suspect vote tally reports, each of them sufficient to trigger, under law, a vote-by-vote recount in the first instance; on Wednesday, despite motions to count the votes in each of those 640 precincts, Guanajuato election officials allowed only eight to be recounted.

Those eight precincts â€“ representing 0.13 percent of the stateâ€™s vote â€“ reduced CalderÃ³nâ€™s margin by 253 votes, or an average of 31 votes per precinct. If the remaining 632 precincts with irregularities were to show a similar shift, LÃ³pez Obradorâ€™s count would increase by 19,592 votes. If all 6,122 precincts, counted by hand, were to show a similar shift, Guanajuato alone would change the national tally by 189,782 votes. From five percent of the Republic, CalderÃ³nâ€™s official margin of victory would, according to our math, be reduced nationwide by 77 percent, from 244,000 to just 55,000 votes. That is just one state with just five percent of the nationâ€™s population.

Claims by IFE and others that the selection of civilian precinct authorities (something akin to jury duty) makes bias and fraud impossible are absurd. Corruption, in Mexican elections, is a two-way street with a long history. For every bribe or â€œdispensaâ€ (food, construction materials, etcetera) handed out by a corrupt official to rent a vote or a voter ID card, there is a voter willing to do his part trade his vote (or his credential) for money or material things. The same goes for overzealous citizen poll staffers: A culture of corruption is not cured in a single election or in a six-year presidential term. It can only be countered by legal recourses such as the one that exists, or should: a vote-by-vote recount.

The perpetrators of this fraud, the PAN party, complained for decades about the very heavy-handed tactics used by the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) to rob elections from the PAN. But once in power, the PAN adopted those same anti-democratic tactics for its own use. In a place like Guanajuato, where the culture itself is heavily PANista, more than ten percent of the precincts fell victim to such obvious fraudulent activity that poll-watchers from other parties challenged the irregularities on election night and again on Wednesday during the official count. In others, in this heavily PAN-dominated state, there simply were no opposition observers in the room on Sunday to make the challenge (the same occurred in other highly populated PAN-governed states like Jalisco and Nuevo Leon). The bias of the jurors (and, during Wednesdayâ€™s official count, by IFE employees) was made evident by the refusal to open the ballot boxes and count, vote-by-vote, even in 632 precincts where clear and challenged irregularities had occurred with sufficient evidence to force a hand count.

This kind of stonewalling by the PAN, in its electoral strongholds (not just in Guanajuato but also in Jalisco (and its capital of Guadalajara), QuerÃ©taro and throughout Northern Mexico, (including Nuevo Leon and its capital Monterrey), and the IFE all over the country indicates that the participants in this fraud are well aware that their victory is one of theft and criminality. Every step since Sunday they have sought to prevent a full recount under the eyes of the press and public. Human nature is human nature: peopleâ€™s bias and partiality plays a role in the vote counting, too, wherever it can. None of this analysis requires a conspiracy theory (not to say there hasnâ€™t been a conspiracy, either; in Mexican politics, it would be strange if there was not): It is sufficient to trust in human nature and its untrustworthy elements, not to mention human error.

And this is precisely why a full recount is necessary. Those who oppose it or prevent it from happening reveal exactly why it must happen to clear up the significant public distrust of these results. If the pro-CalderÃ³n forces (including IFE) oppose that sunlight, that opposition strongly suggests that that they have reasons to prefer the darkness. Their refusal to permit it, if their opposition to a vote-by-vote recount prevails in these opening stages of the post-electoral conflict, assures that CalderÃ³n, if he makes it to inauguration on December 1, will face an impossible task of trying to govern an angry and organized population that does not consider him to have won legitimately. That the PAN is willing to risk even that is the best indication that it knows it â€œwonâ€ illegitimately, only through fraud.

As for Guanajuato â€“ Mexicoâ€™s â€œFloridaâ€ in this yearâ€™s electoral fraud â€“ Fox and the PAN party did not invent the anti-democratic tactics that they have embraced there and elsewhere in 2006. They learned how to cheat from the PRI, when it governed that state, and where the PRI used the same techniques against Vicente Fox when he ran for governor in 1991.

Vicente Fox, in his own autobiography (pulled off the shelves today by El Universal columnist Katia D Artigues), wrote of how he confronted the 1991 election fraud against him as candidate for governor of â€œMexicoâ€™s Florida,â€ Guanajuato:

â€œAfter a 250-day campaign, the official results gave the victory to (PRI candidate) RamÃ³n Aguirre with 53% of the vote. The PAN and I were in second place with 35% of the votes. The signs that a monumental electoral fraud had been perpetrated in Guanajuato were so evident that I immediately called for civil resistance. On August 21 in Irapuato, before 4,000 PAN sympathizers, I denounced the existence of more than 700 precinct results filled with immoralities. I detailed that in 506 of the 3,000 precinct results scrutinized there were more votes cast than votersâ€¦

â€œWe began a march of 60 kilometers to the city of Guanajuato which we called the â€˜walk for democracyâ€™ to demand that the state electoral tribunal annul the results of at least 700 precincts. As part of these civil resistance actions, we blockaded highways, took over the international airport, surrounded the city of Guanajuato, took over city squares in Celaya, Irapuato and Dolores, filling them with citizens, housewives, students and elders, who denounced the electoral fraud. Our spirit was too overwhelming and to stop us, a horde of drunken PRI party members tried to destroy the state congressional buildingâ€¦â€

Foxâ€™s 1991 civil resistance led to a compromise in which then-independent (now PAN member) Carlos Medina Plascencia was installed as interim governor. (And that little piece of history explains why, as Narco News reported on June 30, Fox has positioned PRD founder CuauhtÃ©moc CÃ¡rdenas to become interim president if his partyâ€™s 2006 electoral fraud comes similarly crashing down as occurred to the PRI in Guanajuato in 1991.)

Revealingly, at the same present moment in 2006 when the PAN is attacking LÃ³pez Obradorâ€™s announcement that he will file a legal complaint with the Trife electoral tribunal, the PAN itself is doing the same to challenge the local results for three seats on the Mexico City Council. What they say is that LÃ³pez Obrador should not appeal the results or spark civil resistance. But what they â€“ the PAN – themselves have done is exactly what he â€“ Obrador and the PRD – and his supporters are likely to do this summer and fall.

Vote Shaving, â€œAnt Styleâ€

With a 244,000 â€œofficialâ€ margin in the nationâ€™s 130,000 precincts, the IFE-claimed margin comes down to less than two votes per precinct: less than two per ballot box, as many precincts contain more than one. An electoral fraud can be carried out simply by â€œshavingâ€ or adding a few votes here and there: this pattern is already documented to have helped CalderÃ³n on the IFE PREP totals, and that IFEâ€™s own website furnished the visible proof may explain why IFE â€“ for all its claims of transparency â€“ has not put the Wednesday â€œofficial countâ€ results up by precinct online. Even as IFE has declared CalderÃ³n the winner, it has refused to account, precinct by precinct, where it got its current set of numbers.

Take a look at this photo of the â€œactaâ€ (the signed precinct result) in Tabasco precinct number 0245, ballot box #2, and compare it with the result that IFE reported on its PREP system: The acta says that LÃ³pez Obrador received 236 votes: IFEâ€™s PREP results, though, showed him with 203; a reduction of 33 votes from a single ballot box.

Photo of PREP result from Tabasco (click to enlarge):

Photo of the â€œactaâ€ from the same precinct:

Or, here, in the State of Mexico, in precinct 1019: The photo of the acta gives 188 votes for Obrador, but only 88 â€“ a difference of 100 â€“ were reported by IFE:

Photo of PREP result from the State of Mexico (click to enlarge):

Photo of the â€œactaâ€ from the same precinct:

In other districts, there was a pattern of one vote shaved from LÃ³pez Obrador between the acta and the PREP results, or one vote added to CalderÃ³n. Narco News has reviewed similar photos of that phenomenon from Baja California precinct 0105 (62 votes for Obrador, 61 reported), and from Baja California precinct 0548 (190 votes for Calderon, 191 reported).

Here are some others; this report only cites those that we have been able to review via photographs of the original actas: Veracruz precinct 2073: 188 votes for Obrador, 186 reported, two votes disappeared. Morelos precinct 0061: 194 votes for Obrador, 190 reported, four votes disappeared. Mexico City precinct 2411: 139 votes for Obrador, 134 reported, five votes disappeared. QuerÃ©taro precinct 0375, ballot box #1: 103 votes for Obrador, 102 reported, one vote disappeared. State of Mexico precinct 0855: 208 votes for Obrador, 197 reported, 11 votes disappeared. State of Mexico precinct 0297: 167 votes for Obrador, 159 reported, eight votes disappeared. Mexico City precinct 0444, ballot box #2: 322 votes for Obrador, 318 reported, four votes disappeared..

We have not seen a single photograph of the opposite occurring: of votes taken from CalderÃ³n or added to Obrador.

This election fraud tactic is known in Mexico as â€œestilo hormiga,â€ or â€œant style.â€ In an election this officially close, there is no question that, if undetected, small shovelfuls of votes diverted or hidden can make the difference in the national result.

That IFE chairman Ugalde rushed to pronounce a winner on Thursday before his agency publicly disclosed the precinct-by-precinct tally counts is cause for concern: No citizen, candidate or party is able to confirm that the actual results from the hard count match the IFE final tally. In the context of this pattern of â€œant styleâ€ differences with the PREP results on Sunday, and IFEâ€™s dishonesty (see Part I of this series) in hiding 3.3 million votes from the PREP results while claiming 98.5 percent had been counted in them, Ugaldeâ€™s panicked rush to declare a winner without providing transparency in the result seems all too much like a repeat of his suspicious Sunday performance.

Do the Ballots Still Exist?

Earlier this week, Narco News shared reports and a photo of ballot boxes and ballots from the Obrador stronghold of Nezahuacoyotl, discovered in a municipal garbage dump. Similar sightings (photographed and notarized) have been unearthed in Veracruz and Mexico City (also bases of Obradorâ€™s support). Here is a photograph from todayâ€™s La Jornada of three completed ballots found adrift all alone in a Mexico City garbage can: two of those votes are for Obrador, the third is for PRI candidate Roberto Madrazo.

Lost ballots found in the garbage.

Foto: D.R. 2006 La Jornada

What might explain IFE chairman Ugaldeâ€™s rush to pronounce judgment and opposition to a vote-by-vote recount is the possibility that these are not isolated cases; that if a full recount is ordered, but the ballots no longer exist in safe keeping, all the IFE and mass media claims of a â€œcleanâ€ electoral process will find themselves in the garbage dump of history. More personally, IFE officials could go to jail. Again, the only way to find out would be to conduct a full vote-by-vote recount of the kind that IFE and the PAN so vehemently oppose.

Wednesdayâ€™s hard count of precinct results was bizarre to behold. Your correspondent published, via the Narcosphere, the hour-by-hour results reported by IFE.

Interestingly, from the noon hour Wednesday when we first began tracking and logging the results, when 25 percent of the precinct counts had been reported, and hours later, when 65 percent had been tabulated, LÃ³pez Obrador consistently polled ahead of CalderÃ³n by 2.42 to 2.76 percent of the vote (a percentage consistent with our projection that LÃ³pez Obrador won by about one million votes); both candidates had almost no fluctuation to their totals. The manner in which that tally suddenly changed course is bizarre from a mathematical or statistical perspective.

As the latter third of the results came in beginning at 4:44 p.m. on Wednesday, CalderÃ³nâ€™s vote percentage began to creep upward as LÃ³pez Obradorâ€™s creeped downward by equal and opposite amounts. During this count of the final 35 percent of the tallies, interestingly, PRI candidate Roberto Madrazoâ€™s percentage remained steadily the same as it had all day (within half-a-percentage point, landing at 22.26 percent) as did that of the also-rans Patricia Mercado and Roberto Campa. All day and night â€“ see the accompanying graph â€“ three candidates remained with their totals in a straight line, but in the final stretch only Obrador and CalderÃ³n percentages diverged from the consistency of the first two-thirds of the tallies.

CalderÃ³n partisans (including IFE and the mass media) explain the final shift as one of northern Mexican regions coming in last. But Madrazoâ€™s vote, in particular, was uneven nationwide. This was shown by IFEâ€™s PREP results in the breakdown among the five regions by which the vote count was organized.

Madrazoâ€™s regional totals were 24.09 percent in Region 1 (Northern Mexico) and 23.12 percent in region 2 (North-Central Mexico), the regions from where CalderÃ³n supposedly got his late surge in Wednesdayâ€™s precinct count: nearly one and two points above his national average of 22.26. Had the final tallies in Wednesdayâ€™s precinct count really come in from the North and North-Central regions, a statistically significant upward shift would have been registered from Madrazo as well. That it did not casts important doubt upon the claims by IFE and television media that a regional vote saved the day for CalderÃ³n at the eleventh hour.

Again, these are from the already discredited PREP results, but it is significant how divergent Madrazoâ€™s tally is region by region, and particularly how he finished higher in the two northern regions than in the combined three central-southern regions. And yet the sudden divergence early Thursday morning between CalderÃ³n and Obrador â€“ according to IFEâ€™s still undocumented conclusions â€“ did not statistically change Madrazoâ€™s total as it would have had it mainly come from CalderÃ³nâ€™s northern base regions.

Suspicions about computer-generated fraud â€“ rooted, in part, in the fact that IFEâ€™s computer systems were partly designed by companies and partners of CalderÃ³nâ€™s brother-in-law Diego Hildebrando Zavala â€“ have been raised anew by the statistical anomalies and inconsistencies both in the PREP counts and hard counts claimed by the IFE, particularly the lack of fluctuation in Madrazoâ€™s hard count tally at the very moments when a radical shift occurred from Obrador to CalderÃ³n. And the fact that IFE chairman Ugalde rushed, at 4 p.m. Thursday, to declare a winner without having transparently reported the region-by-region and state-by-state results (at press time, IFE still has not published them) smells as rotten as the legal fact that Ugalde is not empowered by any law to declare a winner but that he inexplicably did so anyway: that task belongs, legally, to the judicial branch of government, the Trife tribunal. Ugaldeâ€™s illegal hurry suggests motive to literally play fast and loose with the facts, as he has done.

As Article 99 of the Mexican Constitution, establishing the Electoral Tribunal (Trife) and its Supreme Court, clearly states: â€œThe (Trife) Supreme Court will conduct the final count of the election of President of the Mexican United States.â€

So why did Ugalde, arrogantly and illegally, steal that role for himself? What was his hurry? What was his fear of waiting, as the law provides, for the Trife to declare the winner?

The Constitution has some other interesting things to say that are relevant to this post-electoral conflictâ€¦

The Constitution Requires a Full Recount

Article 41 of the Mexican Constitution states:

â€œThe people exercises its sovereignty through the Powers of the Union, in cases of their responsibility, and through those of the States, regarding their internal regimens, in the respective terms established by the present Federal Constitution and those of the States, which in no case may contradict the stipulations of the Federal Pactâ€¦

â€œIII. The organization of federal elections is a responsibility of the State that is conducted by a public, autonomous agency named the Federal Electoral Institute, provided with legal power and its own resources, in whose formation the Legislative Branch, the national political parties and the citizens participate under the terms provided by law. In the exercise of this governmental function, certainty, legality, independence, impartiality, and objectivity are the guiding principlesâ€¦â€

This article requires, among other things, that the government provide â€œcertaintyâ€ as to election results (as well as â€œlegalityâ€ and â€œimpartialityâ€). The mere existence of widespread public uncertainty (as well as illegal and biased activity by the IFE) provides the supreme electoral Tribunal with absolute legal grounds to reassert conditions that would restore public certainty. The Trife therefore has the power, and responsibility, to require a recount as the obvious and only means to restore that certainty.

And if a conflict surfaces between the IFE and the Trife as to interpreting those factors, Article 99 of the Mexican Constitution is very clear:

â€œThe Electoral Tribunal will be, with the exception of the requirements of Article 105 of this Constitution (authorâ€™s note: which says that the national Supreme Court may only resolve, in the electoral arena, Constitutional conflicts between individual states, or between states and the federal government), the maximum jurisdictional authority in the material and specialized organ of the Judicial Branch of the Federationâ€¦

â€œThe Electoral is responsible for resolving, definitively and finally, according to this Constitution and under law questions regardingâ€¦

â€œII. The legal challenges that are presented about the election of President of the United Mexican States that will be resolved once and for all by the (Trifeâ€™s) Supreme Courtâ€¦â€

This article clearly states that, in case of conflict between IFEâ€™s interpretation and that of the Electoral Tribunal, the Tribunal has final power and say. Thus, the Constitution â€“ see Article 41, especially the part about the requirement for â€œcertaintyâ€ â€“ must be interpreted as determinative over any IFE regulation.

Thatâ€™s the law. It allows for, and requires, public â€œcertaintyâ€ in presidential election results: something that does not exist today regarding Sundayâ€™s vote. A recount is the only path available with which to establish that certainty in the 2006 election results.

But that presumes that the hype is true: that Mexico counts with honest institutions transparently upholding the rule of law.

Your reporter witnessed, in 1999, that same Supreme Electoral Tribunal â€“ the Trife â€“ fail to comply with its mandate at an hour when the voters of Guerrero were denied certainty of a gubernatorial election plagued with evidence of fraud. At that moment, the Trife ignored the public uncertainty, and allowed the PRI candidate to triumph in a situation very similar to todayâ€™s, in which the Guerrero state IFE granted, by a dubious one percent of the vote plagued with similar irregularities, against a candidate of the PRD for governor.

That was then. This is now. If the Trife decides to repeat its dark history, this year on the national level, what argument shall be left that the Mexican people can or should have faith in their institutions? The Trife will decide one matter â€“ whether there shall be an authentic recount of the votes â€“ but, in doing so, it will also determine the legitimacy of the Mexican Federal State. If it opts again to ratify illegitimacy, by denying a recount, nobody should claim surprise if the people respond accordingly, and take that power away from the corrupted institutions of the Mexican State.

To be continuedâ€¦

from The Narco News Bulletin

Comments Off on A Full Recount Would Show that LÃ³pez Obrador Won Mexicoâ€™s Presidency by More than One Million Votes · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Posted in General on June 1st, 2006

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted — enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

The complete article, with Web-only citations, follows. For more, see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary.Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush — and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush’s victory as nut cases in ”tinfoil hats,” while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ”conspiracy theories,”(1) and The New York Times declared that ”there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.”(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots — or received them too late to vote(4) — after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment — roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush’s victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America’s voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ”We didn’t have one election for president in 2004,” says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ”We didn’t have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.”

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I’ve become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) — more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio’s Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn?t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes — enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)

”It was terrible,” says Sen. Christopher Dodd, who helped craft reforms in 2002 that were supposed to prevent such electoral abuses. ”People waiting in line for twelve hours to cast their ballots, people not being allowed to vote because they were in the wrong precinct — it was an outrage. In Ohio, you had a secretary of state who was determined to guarantee a Republican outcome. I’m terribly disheartened.”

Indeed, the extent of the GOP’s effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. ”Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,” Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. ”You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.”

I. The Exit Polls
The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren’t just off the mark — they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.(16)

Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable. Unlike pre-election polls, in which voters are asked to predict their own behavior at some point in the future, exit polls ask voters leaving the voting booth to report an action they just executed. The results are exquisitely accurate: Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent.(17) ”Exit polls are almost never wrong,” Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are ”so reliable,” he added, ”that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.”(18) In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down.(19) And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine — paid for by the Bush administration — exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency.(20)

But that same month, when exit polls revealed disturbing disparities in the U.S. election, the six media organizations that had commissioned the survey treated its very existence as an embarrassment. Instead of treating the discrepancies as a story meriting investigation, the networks scrubbed the offending results from their Web sites and substituted them with ”corrected” numbers that had been weighted, retroactively, to match the official vote count. Rather than finding fault with the election results, the mainstream media preferred to dismiss the polls as flawed.(21)

”The people who ran the exit polling, and all those of us who were their clients, recognized that it was deeply flawed,” says Tom Brokaw, who served as anchor for NBC News during the 2004 election. ”They were really screwed up — the old models just don’t work anymore. I would not go on the air with them again.”

In fact, the exit poll created for the 2004 election was designed to be the most reliable voter survey in history. The six news organizations — running the ideological gamut from CBS to Fox News — retained Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International,(22) whose principal, Warren Mitofsky, pioneered the exit poll for CBS in 1967(23) and is widely credited with assuring the credibility of Mexico’s elections in 1994.(24) For its nationwide poll, Edison/Mitofsky selected a random subsample of 12,219 voters(25) — approximately six times larger than those normally used in national polls(26) — driving the margin of error down to approximately plus or minus one percent.(27)

On the evening of the vote, reporters at each of the major networks were briefed by pollsters at 7:54 p.m. Kerry, they were informed, had an insurmountable lead and would win by a rout: at least 309 electoral votes to Bush’s 174, with fifty-five too close to call.(28) In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair went to bed contemplating his relationship with President-elect Kerry.(29)

As the last polling stations closed on the West Coast, exit polls showed Kerry ahead in ten of eleven battleground states — including commanding leads in Ohio and Florida — and winning by a million and a half votes nationally. The exit polls even showed Kerry breathing down Bush’s neck in supposed GOP strongholds Virginia and North Carolina.(30) Against these numbers, the statistical likelihood of Bush winning was less than one in 450,000.(31) ”Either the exit polls, by and large, are completely wrong,” a Fox News analyst declared, ”or George Bush loses.”(32)

But as the evening progressed, official tallies began to show implausible disparities — as much as 9.5 percent — with the exit polls. In ten of the eleven battleground states, the tallied margins departed from what the polls had predicted. In every case, the shift favored Bush. Based on exit polls, CNN had predicted Kerry defeating Bush in Ohio by a margin of 4.2 percentage points. Instead, election results showed Bush winning the state by 2.5 percent. Bush also tallied 6.5 percent more than the polls had predicted in Pennsylvania, and 4.9 percent more in Florida.(33)

According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000. ”As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,” he says, ”it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.” (See The Tale of the Exit Polls)

Puzzled by the discrepancies, Freeman laboriously examined the raw polling data released by Edison/Mitofsky in January 2005. ”I’m not even political — I despise the Democrats,” he says. ”I’m a survey expert. I got into this because I was mystified about how the exit polls could have been so wrong.” In his forthcoming book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count, Freeman lays out a statistical analysis of the polls that is deeply troubling.

In its official postmortem report issued two months after the election, Edison/Mitofsky was unable to identify any flaw in its methodology — so the pollsters, in essence, invented one for the electorate. According to Mitofsky, Bush partisans were simply disinclined to talk to exit pollsters on November 2nd(34) — displaying a heretofore unknown and undocumented aversion that skewed the polls in Kerry’s favor by a margin of 6.5 percent nationwide.(35)

Industry peers didn’t buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation’s leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky’s ”reluctant responder” hypothesis is ”preposterous.”(36) Even Mitofsky, in his official report, underscored the hollowness of his theory: ”It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.”(37)

Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky’s own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters’ questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey — compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) ”The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,” observes Freeman, ”but actually contradicts it.”

What’s more, Freeman found, the greatest disparities between exit polls and the official vote count came in Republican strongholds. In precincts where Bush received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to within three tenths of one percent — a pattern that suggests Republican election officials stuffed the ballot box in Bush country.(39)

”When you look at the numbers, there is a tremendous amount of data that supports the supposition of election fraud,” concludes Freeman. ”The discrepancies are higher in battleground states, higher where there were Republican governors, higher in states with greater proportions of African-American communities and higher in states where there were the most Election Day complaints. All these are strong indicators of fraud — and yet this supposition has been utterly ignored by the press and, oddly, by the Democratic Party.”

The evidence is especially strong in Ohio. In January, a team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state’s exit polls against the certified vote count in each of the forty-nine precincts polled by Edison/Mitofsky. In twenty-two of those precincts — nearly half of those polled — they discovered results that differed widely from the official tally. Once again — against all odds — the widespread discrepancies were stacked massively in Bush’s favor: In only two of the suspect twenty-two precincts did the disparity benefit Kerry. The wildest discrepancy came from the precinct Mitofsky numbered ”27,” in order to protect the anonymity of those surveyed. According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.(40)

Such results, according to the archive, provide ”virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount.” The discrepancies, the experts add, ”are consistent with the hypothesis that Kerry would have won Ohio’s electoral votes if Ohio’s official vote counts had accurately reflected voter intent.”(41) According to Ron Baiman, vice president of the archive and a public policy analyst at Loyola University in Chicago, ”No rigorous statistical explanation” can explain the ”completely nonrandom” disparities that almost uniformly benefited Bush. The final results, he adds, are ”completely consistent with election fraud — specifically vote shifting.”

II. The Partisan Official
No state was more important in the 2004 election than Ohio. The state has been key to every Republican presidential victory since Abraham Lincoln’s, and both parties overwhelmed the state with television ads, field organizers and volunteers in an effort to register new voters and energize old ones. Bush and Kerry traveled to Ohio a total of forty-nine times during the campaign — more than to any other state.(42)

But in the battle for Ohio, Republicans had a distinct advantage: The man in charge of the counting was Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of President Bush’s re-election committee.(43) As Ohio’s secretary of state, Blackwell had broad powers to interpret and implement state and federal election laws — setting standards for everything from the processing of voter registration to the conduct of official recounts.(44) And as Bush’s re-election chair in Ohio, he had a powerful motivation to rig the rules for his candidate. Blackwell, in fact, served as the ”principal electoral system adviser” for Bush during the 2000 recount in Florida,(45) where he witnessed firsthand the success of his counterpart Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state who co-chaired Bush’s campaign there.(46)

Blackwell — now the Republican candidate for governor of Ohio(47) — is well-known in the state as a fierce partisan eager to rise in the GOP. An outspoken leader of Ohio’s right-wing fundamentalists, he opposes abortion even in cases of rape(48) and was the chief cheerleader for the anti-gay-marriage amendment that Republicans employed to spark turnout in rural counties(49). He has openly denounced Kerry as ”an unapologetic liberal Democrat,”(50) and during the 2004 election he used his official powers to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens in Democratic strongholds. In a ruling issued two weeks before the election, a federal judge rebuked Blackwell for seeking to ”accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000.”(51)

”The secretary of state is supposed to administer elections — not throw them,” says Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Cleveland who has dealt with Blackwell for years. ”The election in Ohio in 2004 stands out as an example of how, under color of law, a state election official can frustrate the exercise of the right to vote.”

The most extensive investigation of what happened in Ohio was conducted by Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.(52) Frustrated by his party’s failure to follow up on the widespread evidence of voter intimidation and fraud, Conyers and the committee’s minority staff held public hearings in Ohio, where they looked into more than 50,000 complaints from voters.(53) In January 2005, Conyers issued a detailed report that outlined ”massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio.” The problems, the report concludes, were ”caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.”(54)

”Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake,” Conyers told me. ”He saw his role as limiting the participation of Democratic voters. We had hearings in Columbus for two days. We could have stayed two weeks, the level of fury was so high. Thousands of people wanted to testify. Nothing like this had ever happened to them before.”

When ROLLING STONE confronted Blackwell about his overtly partisan attempts to subvert the election, he dismissed any such claim as ”silly on its face.” Ohio, he insisted in a telephone interview, set a ”gold standard” for electoral fairness. In fact, his campaign to subvert the will of the voters had begun long before Election Day. Instead of welcoming the avalanche of citizen involvement sparked by the campaign, Blackwell permitted election officials in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo to conduct a massive purge of their voter rolls, summarily expunging the names of more than 300,000 voters who had failed to cast ballots in the previous two national elections.(55) In Cleveland, which went five-to-one for Kerry, nearly one in four voters were wiped from the rolls between 2000 and 2004.(56)

There were legitimate reasons to clean up voting lists: Many of the names undoubtedly belonged to people who had moved or died. But thousands more were duly registered voters who were deprived of their constitutional right to vote — often without any notification — simply because they had decided not to go to the polls in prior elections.(57) In Cleveland’s precinct 6C, where more than half the voters on the rolls were deleted,(58) turnout was only 7.1 percent(59) — the lowest in the state.

According to the Conyers report, improper purging ”likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters statewide.”(60) If only one in ten of the 300,000 purged voters showed up on Election Day — a conservative estimate, according to election scholars — that is 30,000 citizens who were unfairly denied the opportunity to cast ballots.

III. The Strike Force
In the months leading up to the election, Ohio was in the midst of the biggest registration drive in its history. Tens of thousands of volunteers and paid political operatives from both parties canvassed the state, racing to register new voters in advance of the October 4th deadline. To those on the ground, it was clear that Democrats were outpacing their Republican counterparts: A New York Times analysis before the election found that new registrations in traditional Democratic strongholds were up 250 percent, compared to only twenty-five percent in Republican-leaning counties.(61) ”The Democrats have been beating the pants off us in the air and on the ground,” a GOP county official in Columbus confessed to The Washington Times.(62)

To stem the tide of new registrations, the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party attempted to knock tens of thousands of predominantly minority and urban voters off the rolls through illegal mailings known in electioneering jargon as ”caging.” During the Eighties, after the GOP used such mailings to disenfranchise nearly 76,000 black voters in New Jersey and Louisiana, it was forced to sign two separate court orders agreeing to abstain from caging.(63) But during the summer of 2004, the GOP targeted minority voters in Ohio by zip code, sending registered letters to more than 200,000 newly registered voters(64) in sixty-five counties.(65) On October 22nd, a mere eleven days before the election, Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett — who also chairs the board of elections in Cuyahoga County — sought to invalidate the registrations of 35,427 voters who had refused to sign for the letters or whose mail came back as undeliverable.(66) Almost half of the challenged voters were from Democratic strongholds in and around Cleveland.(67)

There were plenty of valid reasons that voters had failed to respond to the mailings: The list included people who couldn’t sign for the letters because they were serving in the U.S. military, college students whose school and home addresses differed,(68) and more than 1,000 homeless people who had no permanent mailing address.(69) But the undeliverable mail, Bennett claimed, proved the new registrations were fraudulent.

By law, each voter was supposed to receive a hearing before being stricken from the rolls.(70) Instead, in the week before the election, kangaroo courts were rapidly set up across the state at Blackwell’s direction that would inevitably disenfranchise thousands of voters at a time(71) — a process that one Democratic election official in Toledo likened to an ”inquisition.”(72) Not that anyone was given a chance to actually show up and defend their right to vote: Notices to challenged voters were not only sent out impossibly late in the process, they were mailed to the very addresses that the Republicans contended were faulty.(73) Adding to the atmosphere of intimidation, sheriff’s detectives in Sandusky County were dispatched to the homes of challenged voters to investigate the GOP’s claims of fraud.(74)

”I’m afraid this is going to scare these people half to death, and they are never going to show up on Election Day,” Barb Tuckerman, director of the Sandusky Board of Elections, told local reporters. ”Many of them are young people who have registered for the first time. I’ve called some of these people, and they are perfectly legitimate.”(75)

On October 27th, ruling that the effort likely violated both the ”constitutional right to due process and constitutional right to vote,” U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott put a halt to the GOP challenge(76) — but not before tens of thousands of new voters received notices claiming they were improperly registered. Some election officials in the state illegally ignored Dlott’s ruling, stripping hundreds of voters from the rolls.(77) In Columbus and elsewhere, challenged registrants were never notified that the court had cleared them to vote.

On October 29th, a federal judge found that the Republican Party had violated the court orders from the Eighties that barred it from caging. ”The return of mail does not implicate fraud,” the court affirmed,(78) and the disenfranchisement effort illegally targeted ”precincts where minority voters predominate, interfering with and discouraging voters from voting in those districts.”(79) Nor were such caging efforts limited to Ohio: The GOP also targeted hundreds of thousands of urban voters in the battleground states of Florida,(80) Pennsylvania(81) and Wisconsin.(82)

Republicans in Ohio also worked to deny the vote to citizens who had served jail time for felonies. Although rehabilitated prisoners are entitled to vote in Ohio, election officials in Cincinnati demanded that former convicts get a judge to sign off before they could register to vote.(83) In case they didn’t get the message, Republican operatives turned to intimidation. According to the Conyers report, a team of twenty-five GOP volunteers calling themselves the Mighty Texas Strike Force holed up at the Holiday Inn in Columbus a day before the election, around the corner from the headquarters of the Ohio Republican Party — which paid for their hotel rooms. The men were overheard by a hotel worker ”using pay phones to make intimidating calls to likely voters” and threatening former convicts with jail time if they tried to cast ballots.(84)

This was no freelance operation. The Strike Force — an offshoot of the Republican National Committee(85) — was part of a team of more than 1,500 volunteers from Texas who were deployed to battleground states, usually in teams of ten. Their leader was Pat Oxford, (86) a Houston lawyer who managed Bush’s legal defense team in 2000 in Florida,(87) where he warmly praised the efforts of a mob that stormed the Miami-Dade County election offices and halted the recount. It was later revealed that those involved in the ”Brooks Brothers Riot” were not angry Floridians but paid GOP staffers, many of them flown in from out of state.(88) Photos of the protest show that one of the ”rioters” was Joel Kaplan, who has just taken the place of Karl Rove at the White House, where he now directs the president’s policy operations.(89)

IV. Barriers to Registration
To further monkey-wrench the process he was bound by law to safeguard, Blackwell cited an arcane elections regulation to make it harder to register new voters. In a now-infamous decree, Blackwell announced on September 7th — less than a month before the filing deadline — that election officials would process registration forms only if they were printed on eighty-pound unwaxed white paper stock, similar to a typical postcard. Justifying his decision to ROLLING STONE, Blackwell portrayed it as an attempt to protect voters: ”The postal service had recommended to us that we establish a heavy enough paper-weight standard that we not disenfranchise voters by having their registration form damaged by postal equipment.” Yet Blackwell’s order also applied to registrations delivered in person to election offices. He further specified that any valid registration cards printed on lesser paper stock that miraculously survived the shredding gauntlet at the post office were not to be processed; instead, they were to be treated as applications for a registration form, requiring election boards to send out a brand-new card.(90)

Blackwell’s directive clearly violated the Voting Rights Act, which stipulates that no one may be denied the right to vote because of a registration error that ”is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote.”(91) The decision immediately threw registration efforts into chaos. Local newspapers that had printed registration forms in their pages saw their efforts invalidated.(92) Delaware County posted a notice online saying it could no longer accept its own registration forms.(93) Even Blackwell couldn’t follow the protocol: The Columbus Dispatch reported that his own staff distributed registration forms on lighter-weight paper that was illegal under his rule. Under the threat of court action, Blackwell ultimately revoked his order on September 28th — six days before the registration deadline.(94)

But by then, the damage was done. Election boards across the state, already understaffed and backlogged with registration forms, were unable to process them all in time. According to a statistical analysis conducted in May by the nonpartisan Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition, 16,000 voters in and around the city were disenfranchised because of data-entry errors by election officials,(95) and another 15,000 lost the right to vote due to largely inconsequential omissions on their registration cards.(96) Statewide, the study concludes, a total of 72,000 voters were disenfranchised through avoidable registration errors — one percent of all voters in an election decided by barely two percent.(97)

Despite the widespread problems, Blackwell authorized only one investigation of registration errors after the election — in Toledo — but the report by his own inspectors offers a disturbing snapshot of the malfeasance and incompetence that plagued the entire state.(98) The top elections official in Toledo was a partisan in the Blackwell mold: Bernadette Noe, who chaired both the county board of elections and the county Republican Party.(99) The GOP post was previously held by her husband, Tom Noe,(100) who currently faces felony charges for embezzling state funds and illegally laundering $45,400 of his own money through intermediaries to the Bush campaign.(101)

State inspectors who investigated the elections operation in Toledo discovered ”areas of grave concern.”(102) With less than a month to go before the election, Bernadette Noe and her board had yet to process 20,000 voter registration cards.(103) Board officials arbitrarily decided that mail-in cards (mostly from the Republican suburbs) would be processed first, while registrations dropped off at the board’s office (the fruit of intensive Democratic registration drives in the city) would be processed last.(104) When a grass-roots group called Project Vote delivered a batch of nearly 10,000 cards just before the October 4th deadline, an elections official casually remarked, ”We may not get to them.”(105) The same official then instructed employees to date-stamp an entire box containing thousands of forms, rather than marking each individual card, as required by law.(106) When the box was opened, officials had no way of confirming that the forms were filed prior to the deadline — an error, state inspectors concluded, that could have disenfranchised ”several thousand” voters from Democratic strongholds.(107)

The most troubling incident uncovered by the investigation was Noe’s decision to allow Republican partisans behind the counter in the board of elections office to make photocopies of postcards sent to confirm voter registrations(108) — records that could have been used in the GOP’s caging efforts. On their second day in the office, the operatives were caught by an elections official tampering with the documents.(109) Investigators slammed the elections board for ”a series of egregious blunders” that caused ”the destruction, mutilation and damage of public records.”(110)

On Election Day, Noe sent a team of Republican volunteers to the county warehouse where blank ballots were kept out in the open, ”with no security measures in place.”(111) The state’s assistant director of elections, who just happened to be observing the ballot distribution, demanded they leave. The GOP operatives refused and ultimately had to be turned away by police.(112)

In April 2005, Noe and the entire Board of Elections were forced to resign. But once again, the damage was done. At a ”Victory 2004” rally held in Toledo four days before the election, President Bush himself singled out a pair of ”grass-roots” activists for special praise: ”I want to thank my friends Bernadette Noe and Tom Noe for their leadership in Lucas County.”(113)

V. ”The Wrong Pew”
In one of his most effective maneuvers, Blackwell prevented thousands of voters from receiving provisional ballots on Election Day. The fail-safe ballots were mandated in 2002, when Congress passed a package of reforms called the Help America Vote Act. This would prevent a repeat of the most egregious injustice in the 2000 election, when officials in Florida barred thousands of lawfully registered minority voters from the polls because their names didn’t appear on flawed precinct rolls. Under the law, would-be voters whose registration is questioned at the polls must be allowed to cast provisional ballots that can be counted after the election if the voter’s registration proves valid.(114)

”Provisional ballots were supposed to be this great movement forward,” says Tova Andrea Wang, an elections expert who served with ex-presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford on the commission that laid the groundwork for the Help America Vote Act. ”But then different states erected barriers, and this new right became totally eviscerated.”

In Ohio, Blackwell worked from the beginning to curtail the availability of provisional ballots. (The ballots are most often used to protect voters in heavily Democratic urban areas who move often, creating more opportunities for data-entry errors by election boards.) Six weeks before the vote, Blackwell illegally decreed that poll workers should make on-the-spot judgments as to whether or not a voter lived in the precinct, and provide provisional ballots only to those deemed eligible.(115) When the ruling was challenged in federal court, Judge James Carr could barely contain his anger. The very purpose of the Help America Vote Act, he ruled, was to make provisional ballots available to voters told by precinct workers that they were ineligible: ”By not even mentioning this group — the primary beneficiaries of HAVA’s provisional-voting provisions — Blackwell apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000.”(116)

But instead of complying with the judge’s order to expand provisional balloting, Blackwell insisted that Carr was usurping his power as secretary of state and made a speech in which he compared himself to Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and the apostle Paul — saying that he’d rather go to jail than follow federal law.(117) The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Carr’s ruling on October 23rd — but the confusion over the issue still caused untold numbers of voters across the state to be illegally turned away at the polls on Election Day without being offered provisional ballots.(118) A federal judge also invalidated a decree by Blackwell that denied provisional ballots to absentee voters who were never sent their ballots in the mail. But that ruling did not come down until after 3 p.m. on the day of the election, and likely failed to filter down to the precinct level at all — denying the franchise to even more eligible voters.(119)

We will never know for certain how many voters in Ohio were denied ballots by Blackwell’s two illegal orders. But it is possible to put a fairly precise number on those turned away by his most disastrous directive. Traditionally, anyone in Ohio who reported to a polling station in their county could obtain a provisional ballot. But Blackwell decided to toss out the ballots of anyone who showed up at the wrong precinct — a move guaranteed to disenfranchise Democrats who live in urban areas crowded with multiple polling places. On October 14th, Judge Carr overruled the order, but Blackwell appealed.(120) In court, he was supported by his friend and campaign contributor Tom Noe, who joined the case as an intervenor on behalf of the secretary of state.(121) He also enjoyed the backing of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who filed an amicus brief in support of Blackwell’s position — marking the first time in American history that the Justice Department had gone to court to block the right of voters to vote.(122) The Sixth Circuit, stacked with four judges appointed by George W. Bush, sided with Blackwell.(123)

Blackwell insists that his decision kept the election clean. ”If we had allowed this notion of ?voters without borders’ to exist,” he says, ”it would have opened the door to massive fraud.” But even Republicans were shocked by the move. DeForest Soaries, the GOP chairman of the Election Assistance Commission — the federal agency set up to implement the Help America Vote Act — upbraided Blackwell, saying that the commission disagreed with his decision to deny ballots to voters who showed up at the wrong precinct. ”The purpose of provisional ballots is to not turn anyone away from the polls,” Soaries explained. ”We want as many votes to count as possible.”(124)

The decision left hundreds of thousands of voters in predominantly Democratic counties to navigate the state’s bewildering array of 11,366 precincts, whose boundaries had been redrawn just prior to the election.(125) To further compound their confusion, the new precinct lines were misidentified on the secretary of state’s own Web site, which was months out of date on Election Day. Many voters, out of habit, reported to polling locations that were no longer theirs. Some were mistakenly assured by poll workers on the grounds that they were entitled to cast a provisional ballot at that precinct. Instead, thanks to Blackwell’s ruling, at least 10,000 provisional votes were tossed out after Election Day simply because citizens wound up in the wrong line.(126)

In Toledo, Brandi and Brittany Stenson each got in a different line to vote in the gym at St. Elizabeth Seton School. Both of the sisters were registered to vote at the polling place on the city’s north side, in the shadow of the giant DaimlerChrysler plant. Both cast ballots. But when the tallies were added up later, the family resemblance came to an abrupt end. Brittany’s vote was counted — but Brandi’s wasn’t. It wasn’t enough that she had voted in the right building. If she wanted her vote to count, according to Blackwell’s ruling, she had to choose the line that led to her assigned table. Her ballot — along with those of her mother, her brother and thirty-seven other voters in the same precinct — were thrown out(127) simply because they were, in the words of Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), ”in the right church but the wrong pew.”(128)

All told, the deliberate chaos that resulted from Blackwell’s registration barriers did the trick. Black voters in the state — who went overwhelmingly for Kerry — were twenty percent more likely than whites to be forced to cast a provisional ballot.(129) In the end, nearly three percent of all voters in Ohio were forced to vote provisionally(130) — and more than 35,000 of their ballots were ultimately rejected.(131)

VI. Long Lines
When Election Day dawned on November 2nd, tens of thousands of Ohio voters who had managed to overcome all the obstacles to registration erected by Blackwell discovered that it didn’t matter whether they were properly listed on the voting rolls — because long lines at their precincts prevented them from ever making it to the ballot box. Would-be voters in Dayton and Cincinnati routinely faced waits as long as three hours. Those in inner-city precincts in Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo — which were voting for Kerry by margins of ninety percent or more — often waited up to seven hours. At Kenyon College, students were forced to stand in line for eleven hours before being allowed to vote, with the last voters casting their ballots after three in the morning.(132)

A five-month analysis of the Ohio vote conducted by the Democratic National Committee concluded in June 2005 that three percent of all Ohio voters who showed up to vote on Election Day were forced to leave without casting a ballot.(133) That’s more than 174,000 voters. ”The vast majority of this lost vote,” concluded the Conyers report, ”was concentrated in urban, minority and Democratic-leaning areas.”(134) Statewide, African-Americans waited an average of fifty-two minutes to vote, compared to only eighteen minutes for whites.(135)

The long lines were not only foreseeable — they were actually created by GOP efforts. Republicans in the state legislature, citing new electronic voting machines that were supposed to speed voting, authorized local election boards to reduce the number of precincts across Ohio. In most cases, the new machines never materialized — but that didn’t stop officials in twenty of the state’s eighty-eight counties, all of them favorable to Democrats, from slashing the number of precincts by at least twenty percent.(136)

Republican officials also created long lines by failing to distribute enough voting machines to inner-city precincts. After the Florida disaster in 2000, such problems with machines were supposed to be a thing of the past. Under the Help America Vote Act, Ohio received more than $30 million in federal funds to replace its faulty punch-card machines with more reliable systems.(137) But on Election Day, that money was sitting in the bank. Why? Because Ken Blackwell had applied for an extension until 2006, insisting that there was no point in buying electronic machines that would later have to be retrofitted under Ohio law to generate paper ballots.(138)

”No one has ever accused our secretary of state of lacking in ability,” says Rep. Kucinich. ”He’s a rather bright fellow, and he’s involved in the most minute details of his office. There’s no doubt that he knew the effect of not having enough voting machines in some areas.”

At liberal Kenyon College, where students had registered in record numbers, local election officials provided only two voting machines to handle the anticipated surge of up to 1,300 voters. Meanwhile, fundamentalist students at nearby Mount Vernon Nazarene University had one machine for 100 voters and faced no lines at all.(139) Citing the lines at Kenyon, the Conyers report concluded that the ”misallocation of machines went beyond urban/suburban discrepancies to specifically target Democratic areas.”(140)

In Columbus, which had registered 125,000 new voters(141) — more than half of them black(142) — the board of elections estimated that it would need 5,000 machines to handle the huge surge.(143) ”On Election Day, the county experienced an unprecedented turnout that could only be compared to a 500-year flood,” says Matt Damschroder,(144) chairman of the Franklin County Board of Elections and the former head of the Republican Party in Columbus.(145) But instead of buying more equipment, the Conyers investigation found, Damschroder decided to ”make do” with 2,741 machines.(146) And to make matters worse, he favored his own party in distributing the equipment. According to The Columbus Dispatch, precincts that had gone seventy percent or more for Al Gore in 2000 were allocated seventeen fewer machines in 2004, while strong GOP precincts received eight additional machines.(147) An analysis by voter advocates found that all but three of the thirty wards with the best voter-to-machine ratios were in Bush strongholds; all but one of the seven with the worst ratios were in Kerry country.(148)

The result was utterly predictable. According to an investigation by the Columbus Free Press, white Republican suburbanites, blessed with a surplus of machines, averaged waits of only twenty-two minutes; black urban Democrats averaged three hours and fifteen minutes.(149) ”The allocation of voting machines in Franklin County was clearly biased against voters in precincts with high proportions of African-Americans,” concluded Walter Mebane Jr., a government professor at Cornell University who conducted a statistical analysis of the vote in and around Columbus.(150)

By midmorning, when it became clear that voters were dropping out of line rather than braving the wait, precincts appealed for the right to distribute paper ballots to speed the process. Blackwell denied the request, saying it was an invitation to fraud.(151) A lawsuit ensued, and the handwritten affidavits submitted by voters and election officials offer a heart-rending snapshot of an electoral catastrophe in the offing:(152)

From Columbus Precinct 44D:
”There are three voting machines at this precinct. I have been informed that in prior elections there were normally four voting machines. At 1:45 p.m. there are approximately eighty-five voters in line. At this time, the line to vote is approximately three hours long. This precinct is largely African-American. I have personally witnessed voters leaving the polling place without voting due to the length of the line.”

From Precinct 40:
”I am serving as a presiding judge, a position I have held for some 15+ years in precinct 40. In all my years of service, the lines are by far the longest I have seen, with some waiting as long as four to five hours. I expect the situation to only worsen as the early evening heavy turnout approaches. I have requested additional machines since 6:40 a.m. and no assistance has been offered.”

Precinct 65H:
”I observed a broken voting machine that was not in use for approximately two hours. The precinct judge was very diligent but could not get through to the BOE.”

Precinct 18A:
”At 4 p.m. the average wait time is about 4.5 hours and continuing to increase?. Voters are continuing to leave without voting.”

As day stretched into evening, U.S. District Judge Algernon Marbley issued a temporary restraining order requiring that voters be offered paper ballots.(153) But it was too late: According to bipartisan estimates published in The Washington Post, as many as 15,000 voters in Columbus had already given up and gone home.(154) When closing time came at the polls, according to the Conyers report, some precinct workers illegally dismissed citizens who had waited for hours in the rain — in direct violation of Ohio law, which stipulates that those in line at closing time are allowed to remain and vote.(155)

The voters disenfranchised by long lines were overwhelmingly Democrats. Because of the unequal distribution of voting equipment, the median turnout in Franklin County precincts won by Kerry was fifty-one percent, compared to sixty-one percent in those won by Bush. Assuming sixty percent turnout under more equitable conditions, Kerry would have gained an additional 17,000 votes in the county.(156)

In another move certain to add to the traffic jam at the polls, the GOP deployed 3,600 operatives on Election Day to challenge voters in thirty-one counties — most of them in predominantly black and urban areas.(157) Although it was billed as a means to ”ensure that voters are not disenfranchised by fraud,”(158) Republicans knew that the challengers would inevitably create delays for eligible voters. Even Mark Weaver, the GOP’s attorney in Ohio, predicted in late October that the move would ”create chaos, longer lines and frustration.”(159)

The day before the election, Judge Dlott attempted to halt the challengers, ruling that ”there exists an enormous risk of chaos, delay, intimidation and pandemonium inside the polls and in the lines out the doors.” Dlott was also troubled by the placement of Republican challengers: In Hamilton County, fourteen percent of new voters in white areas would be confronted at the polls, compared to ninety-seven percent of new voters in black areas.(160) But when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court on Election Day, Justice John Paul Stevens allowed the challenges to go forward. ”I have faith,” he ruled, ”that the elected officials and numerous election volunteers on the ground will carry out their responsibilities in a way that will enable qualified voters to cast their ballots.”(161)

In fact, Blackwell gave Republican challengers unprecedented access to polling stations, where they intimidated voters, worsening delays in Democratic precincts. By the end of the day, thanks to a whirlwind of legal wrangling, the GOP had even gotten permission to use the discredited list of 35,000 names from its illegal caging effort to challenge would-be voters.(162) According to the survey by the DNC, nearly 5,000 voters across the state were turned away at the polls because of registration challenges — even though federal law required that they be provided with provisional ballots.(163)

VII. Faulty Machines
Voters who managed to make it past the array of hurdles erected by Republican officials found themselves confronted by voting machines that didn’t work. Only 800,000 out of the 5.6 million votes in Ohio were cast on electronic voting machines, but they were plagued with errors.(164) In heavily Democratic areas around Youngstown, where nearly 100 voters reported entering ”Kerry” on the touch screen and watching ”Bush” light up, at least twenty machines had to be recalibrated in the middle of the voting process for chronically flipping Kerry votes to Bush.(165) (Similar ”vote hopping” from Kerry to Bush was reported by voters and election officials in other states.)(166) Elsewhere, voters complained in sworn affidavits that they touched Kerry’s name on the screen and it lit up, but that the light had gone out by the time they finished their ballot; the Kerry vote faded away.(167) In the state’s most notorious incident, an electronic machine at a fundamentalist church in the town of Gahanna recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry.(168) In that precinct, however, there were only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up.(169) (The error, which was later blamed on a glitchy memory card, was corrected before the certified vote count.)

In addition to problems with electronic machines, Ohio’s vote was skewed by old-fashioned punch-card equipment that posed what even Blackwell acknowledged was the risk of a ”Florida-like calamity.”(170) All but twenty of the state’s counties relied on antiquated machines that were virtually guaranteed to destroy votes(171) — many of which were counted by automatic tabulators manufactured by Triad Governmental Systems,(172) the same company that supplied Florida’s notorious butterfly ballot in 2000. In fact, some 95,000 ballots in Ohio recorded no vote for president at all — most of them on punch-card machines. Even accounting for the tiny fraction of voters in each election who decide not to cast votes for president — generally in the range of half a percent, according to Ohio State law professor and respected elections scholar Dan Tokaji — that would mean that at least 66,000 votes were invalidated by faulty voting equipment.(173) If counted by hand instead of by automated tabulator, the vast majority of these votes would have been discernable. But thanks to a corrupt recount process, only one county hand-counted its ballots.(174)

Most of the uncounted ballots occurred in Ohio’s big cities. In Cleveland, where nearly 13,000 votes were ruined, a New York Times analysis found that black precincts suffered more than twice the rate of spoiled ballots than white districts.(175) In Dayton, Kerry-leaning precincts had nearly twice the number of spoiled ballots as Bush-leaning precincts.(176) Last April, a federal court ruled that Ohio’s use of punch-card balloting violated the equal-protection rights of the citizens who voted on them.(177)

In addition to spoiling ballots, the punch-card machines also created bizarre miscounts known as ”ballot crawl.” In Cleveland Precinct 4F, a heavily African-American precinct, Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka was credited with an impressive forty-one percent of the vote. In Precinct 4N, where Al Gore won ninety-eight percent of the vote in 2000, Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik was credited with thirty-three percent of the vote. Badnarik and Peroutka also picked up a sizable portion of the vote in precincts across Cleveland — 11M, 3B, 8G, 8I, 3I.(178) ”It appears that hundreds, if not thousands, of votes intended to be cast for Senator Kerry were recorded as being for a third-party candidate,” the Conyers report concludes.(179)

But it’s not just third-party candidates: Ballot crawl in Cleveland also shifted votes from Kerry to Bush. In Precinct 13B, where Bush received only six votes in 2000, he was credited with twenty percent of the total in 2004. Same story in 9P, where Bush recorded eighty-seven votes in 2004, compared to his grand total of one in 2000.(180)

VIII. Rural Counties
Despite the well-documented effort that prevented hundreds of thousands of voters in urban and minority precincts from casting ballots, the worst theft in Ohio may have quietly taken place in rural counties. An examination of election data suggests widespread fraud — and even good old-fashioned stuffing of ballot boxes — in twelve sparsely populated counties scattered across southern and western Ohio: Auglaize, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Darke, Highland, Mercer, Miami, Putnam, Shelby, Van Wert and Warren. (See The Twelve Suspect Counties) One key indicator of fraud is to look at counties where the presidential vote departs radically from other races on the ballot. By this measure, John Kerry’s numbers were suspiciously low in each of the twelve counties — and George Bush’s were unusually high.

Take the case of Ellen Connally, a Democrat who lost her race for chief justice of the state Supreme Court. When the ballots were counted, Kerry should have drawn far more votes than Connally — a liberal black judge who supports gay rights and campaigned on a shoestring budget. And that’s exactly what happened statewide: Kerry tallied 667,000 more votes for president than Connally did for chief justice, outpolling her by a margin of thirty-two percent. Yet in these twelve off-the-radar counties, Connally somehow managed to outperform the best-funded Democrat in history, thumping Kerry by a grand total of 19,621 votes — a margin of ten percent.(181) The Conyers report — recognizing that thousands of rural Bush voters were unlikely to have backed a gay-friendly black judge roundly rejected in Democratic precincts — suggests that ”thousands of votes for Senator Kerry were lost.”(182)

Kucinich, a veteran of elections in the state, puts it even more bluntly. ”Down-ticket candidates shouldn’t outperform presidential candidates like that,” he says. ”That just doesn’t happen. The question is: Where did the votes for Kerry go?”

They certainly weren’t invalidated by faulty voting equipment: a trifling one percent of presidential ballots in the twelve suspect counties were spoiled. The more likely explanation is that they were fraudulently shifted to Bush. Statewide, the president outpolled Thomas Moyer, the Republican judge who defeated Connally, by twenty-one percent. Yet in the twelve questionable counties, Bush’s margin over Moyer was fifty percent — a strong indication that the president’s certified vote total was inflated. If Kerry had maintained his statewide margin over Connally in the twelve suspect counties, as he almost assuredly would have done in a clean election, he would have bested her by 81,260 ballots. That’s a swing of 162,520 votes from Kerry to Bush — more than enough to alter the outcome. (183)

”This is very strong evidence that the count is off in those counties,” says Freeman, the poll analyst. ”By itself, without anything else, what happened in these twelve counties turns Ohio into a Kerry state. To me, this provides every indication of fraud.”

How might this fraud have been carried out? One way to steal votes is to tamper with individual ballots — and there is evidence that Republicans did just that. In Clermont County, where optical scanners were used to tabulate votes, sworn affidavits by election observers given to the House Judiciary Committee describe ballots on which marks for Kerry were covered up with white stickers, while marks for Bush were filled in to replace them. Rep. Conyers, in a letter to the FBI, described the testimony as ”strong evidence of vote tampering if not outright fraud.” (184) In Miami County, where Connally outpaced Kerry, one precinct registered a turnout of 98.55 percent (185) — meaning that all but ten eligible voters went to the polls on Election Day. An investigation by the Columbus Free Press, however, collected affidavits from twenty-five people who swear they didn’t vote. (186)

In addition to altering individual ballots, evidence suggests that Republicans tampered with the software used to tabulate votes. In Auglaize County, where Kerry lost not only to Connally but to two other defeated Democratic judicial candidates, voters cast their ballots on touch-screen machines. (187) Two weeks before the election, an employee of ES&S, the company that manufactures the machines, was observed by a local election official making an unauthorized log-in to the central computer used to compile election results. (188) In Miami County, after 100 percent of precincts had already reported their official results, an additional 18,615 votes were inexplicably added to the final tally. The last-minute alteration awarded 12,000 of the votes to Bush, boosting his margin of victory in the county by nearly 6,000. (189)

The most transparently crooked incident took place in Warren County. In the leadup to the election, Blackwell had illegally sought to keep reporters and election observers at least 100 feet away from the polls. (190) The Sixth Circuit, ruling that the decree represented an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, noted ominously that ”democracies die behind closed doors.” But the decision didn’t stop officials in Warren County from devising a way to count the vote in secret. Immediately after the polls closed on Election Day, GOP officials — citing the FBI — declared that the county was facing a terrorist threat that ranked ten on a scale of one to ten. The county administration building was hastily locked down, allowing election officials to tabulate the results without any reporters present.

In fact, there was no terrorist threat. The FBI declared that it had issued no such warning, and an investigation by The Cincinnati Enquirer unearthed e-mails showing that the Republican plan to declare a terrorist alert had been in the works for eight days prior to the election. Officials had even refined the plot down to the language they used on signs notifying the public of a lockdown. (When ROLLING STONE requested copies of the same e-mails from the county, officials responded that the documents have been destroyed.) (191)

The late-night secrecy in Warren County recalls a classic trick: Results are held back until it’s determined how many votes the favored candidate needs to win, and the totals are then adjusted accordingly. When Warren County finally announced its official results — one of the last counties in the state to do so (192) — the results departed wildly from statewide patterns. John Kerry received 2,426 fewer votes for president than Ellen Connally, the poorly funded black judge, did for chief justice. (193) As the Conyers report concluded, ”It is impossible to rule out the possibility that some sort of manipulation of the tallies occurred on election night in the locked-down facility.” (194)

Nor does the electoral tampering appear to have been isolated to these dozen counties. Ohio, like several other states, had an initiative on the ballot in 2004 to outlaw gay marriage. Statewide, the measure proved far more popular than Bush, besting the president by 470,000 votes. But in six of the twelve suspect counties — as well as in six other small counties in central Ohio — Bush outpolled the ban on same-sex unions by 16,132 votes. To trust the official tally, in other words, you must believe that thousands of rural Ohioans voted for both President Bush and gay marriage. (195)

IX. Rigging the Recount
After Kerry conceded the election, his campaign helped the Libertarian and Green parties pay for a recount of all eighty-eight counties in Ohio. Under state law, county boards of election were required to randomly select three percent of their precincts and recount the ballots both by hand and by machine. If the two totals reconciled exactly, a costly hand recount of the remaining votes could be avoided; machines could be used to tally the rest.

But election officials in Ohio worked outside the law to avoid hand recounts. According to charges brought by a special prosecutor in April, election officials in Cleveland fraudulently and secretly pre-counted precincts by hand to identify ones that would match the machine count. They then used these pre-screened precincts to select the ”random” sample of three percent used for the recount.

”If it didn’t balance, they excluded those precincts,” said the prosecutor, Kevin Baxter, who has filed felony indictments against three election workers in Cleveland. ”They screwed with the process and increased the probability, if not the certainty, that there would not be a full, countywide hand count.” (196)

Voting machines were also tinkered with prior to the recount. In Hocking County, deputy elections director Sherole Eaton caught an employee of Triad — which provided the software used to count punch-card ballots in nearly half of Ohio’s counties (197) — making unauthorized modifications to the tabulating computer before the recount. Eaton told the Conyers committee that the same employee also provided county officials with a ”cheat sheet” so that ”the count would come out perfect and we wouldn’t have to do a full hand-recount of the county.” (198) After Eaton blew the whistle on the illegal tampering, she was fired.

(199) The same Triad employee was dispatched to do the same work in at least five other counties. (200) Company president Tod Rapp — who contributed to Bush’s campaign (201) — has confirmed that Triad routinely makes such tabulator adjustments to help election officials avoid hand recounts. In the end, every county serviced by Triad failed to conduct full recounts by hand. (202)

Even more troubling, in at least two counties, Fulton and Henry, Triad was able to connect to tabulating computers remotely via a dial-up connection, and reprogram them to recount only the presidential ballots. (203) If that kind of remote tabulator modification is possible for the purposes of the recount, it’s no great leap to wonder if such modifications might have helped skew the original vote count. But the window for settling such questions is closing rapidly: On November 2nd of this year, on the second anniversary of the election, state officials will be permitted under Ohio law to shred all ballots from the 2004 election. (204)

X. What’s At Stake
The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. ”We’re in a terrible fix,” Rep. Conyers told me. ”We’ve got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse — to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That’s why our citizens are not up in arms.”

The lone news anchor who seriously questioned the integrity of the 2004 election was Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. I asked him why he stood against the tide. ”I was a sports reporter, so I was used to dealing with numbers,” he said. ”And the numbers made no sense. Kerry had an insurmountable lead in the exit polls on Election Night — and then everything flipped.” Olbermann believes that his journalistic colleagues fell down on the job. ”I was stunned by the lack of interest by investigative reporters,” he said. ”The Republicans shut down Warren County, allegedly for national security purposes — and no one covered it. Shouldn’t someone have sent a camera and a few reporters out there?”

Olbermann attributes the lack of coverage to self-censorship by journalists. ”You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble,” he said. ”You cannot say: By the way, there’s something wrong with our electoral system.”

Federal officials charged with safeguarding the vote have also failed to contest the election. ”Congress hasn’t investigated this at all,” says Kucinich. ”There has been no oversight over our nation’s most basic right: the right to vote. How can we call ourselves a beacon of democracy abroad when the right to vote hasn’t been secured in free and fair elections at home?”

Sen. John Kerry — in a wide-ranging discussion of ROLLING STONE’s investigation — expressed concern about Republican tactics in 2004, but stopped short of saying the election was stolen. ”Can I draw a conclusion that they played tough games and clearly had an intent to reduce the level of our vote? Yes, absolutely. Can I tell you to a certainty that it made the difference in the election? I can’t. There’s no way for me to do that. If I could have done that, then obviously I would have found some legal recourse.”

Kerry conceded, however, that the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the outcome reflected the will of the voters. ”I think there are clearly states where it is questionable whether everybody’s vote is being counted, whether everybody is being given the opportunity to register and to vote,” he said. ”There are clearly barriers in too many places to the ability of people to exercise their full franchise. For that to be happening in the United States of America today is disgraceful.”

Kerry’s comments were echoed by Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. ”I’m not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided,” Dean says. ”We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That’s what we suspect has happened, and we’d like to safeguard our elections so that democracy can still be counted on to work.”

To help prevent a repeat of 2004, Kerry has co-sponsored a package of election reforms called the Count Every Vote Act. The measure would increase turnout by allowing voters to register at the polls on Election Day, provide provisional ballots to voters who inadvertently show up at the wrong precinct, require electronic voting machines to produce paper receipts verified by voters, and force election officials like Blackwell to step down if they want to join a campaign. (205) But Kerry says his fellow Democrats have been reluctant to push the reforms, fearing that Republicans would use their majority in Congress to create even more obstacles to voting. ”The real reason there is no appetite up here is that people are afraid the Republicans will amend HAVA and shove something far worse down our throats,” he told me.

On May 24th, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried unsuccessfully to amend the immigration bill to bar anyone who lacks a government-issued photo ID from voting (206) — a rule that would disenfranchise at least six percent of Americans, the majority of them urban and poor, who lack such identification. (207) The GOP-controlled state legislature in Indiana passed a similar measure, and an ID rule in Georgia was recently struck down as unconstitutional. (208)

”Why erect those kinds of hurdles unless you’re afraid of voters?” asks Ralph Neas, director of People for the American Way. ”The country will be better off if everyone votes — Democrats and Republicans. But that is not the Blackwell philosophy, that is not the George W. Bush or Jeb Bush philosophy. They want to limit the franchise and go to extraordinary lengths to make it more difficult to vote.”

The issue of what happened in 2004 is not an academic one. For the second election in a row, the president of the United States was selected not by the uncontested will of the people but under a cloud of dirty tricks. Given the scope of the GOP machinations, we simply cannot be certain that the right man now occupies the Oval Office — which means, in effect, that we have been deprived of our faith in democracy itself.

American history is littered with vote fraud — but rather than learning from our shameful past and cleaning up the system, we have allowed the problem to grow even worse. If the last two elections have taught us anything, it is this: The single greatest threat to our democracy is the insecurity of our voting system. If people lose faith that their votes are accurately and faithfully recorded, they will abandon the ballot box. Nothing less is at stake here than the entire idea of a government by the people.

Voting, as Thomas Paine said, ”is the right upon which all other rights depend.” Unless we ensure that right, everything else we hold dear is in jeopardy.

For more, see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary

1) Manual Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating, ”Latest Conspiracy Theory — Kerry Won — Hits the Ether,” The Washington Post, November 11, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html

2) The New York Times Editorial Desk, ”About Those Election Results,” The New York Times, November 14, 2004. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70615FA3C5B0C778DDDA80994DC404482&n
=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fE%2fElection%20Results

3) United States Department of Defense, ”Defense Department Special Briefing on Federal Voting Assistance Program,” August 6, 2004. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040806-1502.html

4) Overseas Vote Foundation, ”2004 Post Election Survey Results,” June 2005, page 11. http://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/downloads/surveys/ovf_survey_01jun2005_
v1.0_usletter.pdf

5) Jennifer Joan Lee, ”Pentagon Blocks Site for Voters Outside U.S.,” International Herald Tribune, September 20, 2004.

6) Meg Landers, ”Librarian Bares Possible Voter Registration Dodge,” Mail Tribune (Jackson County, OR), September 21, 2004. http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0921/local/stories/02local.htm

7) Mark Brunswick and Pat Doyle, ”Voter Registration; 3 former workers: Firm paid pro-Bush bonuses; One said he was told his job was to bring back cards for GOP voters,” Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), October 27, 2004.

8) Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 2004: Election Results for the U.S. President. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/2004pres.pdf

9) Ellen Theisen and Warren Stewart, Summary Report on New Mexico State Election Data, January 4, 2005, pg. 2. http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/files/
NewMexico2004ElectionDataReport-v2.pdf

James W. Bronsan, ”In 2004, New Mexico Worst at Counting Votes,” Scripps Howard News Service, December 22, 2004. 10) ”A Summary of the 2004 Election Day Survey; How We Voted: People, Ballots & Polling Places; A Report to the American People by the United States Election Assistance Commission,” September 2005, pg. 10. http://www.eac.gov/election_survey_2004/pdf/EDS%20exec.%20summary.pdf

11) Facts mentioned in this paragraph are subsequently cited throughout the story.

12) See ”Ohio?s Missing Votes.”

13) Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 2004: Election Results for the U.S. President. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/2004pres.pdf

14) Democratic National Committee, Voting Rights Institute, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio,” June 22, 2005. Page 5 http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/fullreport.pdf

15) See ”VIII. Rural Counties.”

16) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofksy International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 3 http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

17) This refers to data for German national elections in 1994, 1998 and 2002, previously cited by Steven F. Freeman.

18) Dick Morris, “Those Faulty Exit Polls Were Sabotage,” The Hill, November 4, 2004. http://www.hillnews.com/morris/110404.aspx

19) Martin Plissner, “Exit Polls to Protect the Vote,” The New York Times, October 17, 2004.

20) Matt Kelley, “U.S. Money has Helped Opposition in Ukraine,” Associated Press, December 11, 2004. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041211/news_1n11usaid.html

Daniel Williams, “Court Rejects Ukraine Vote; Justices Cite Massive Fraud in Runoff, Set New Election,” The Washington Post, December 4, 2004.

21) Steve Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, “Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count,” Seven Stories Press, July 2006, Page 102.

22) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 3. http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

23) Mitofsky International Web site. http://www.mitofskyinternational.com/company.htm

24) Tim Golden, “Election Near, Mexicans Question the Questioners,” The New York Times, August 10, 1994.

25) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 59.

26) Jonathan D. Simon, J.D., and Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D., “The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won the Popular Vote? An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data.” FreePress.org, December 29, 2004, P. 9 http://freepress.org/images/departments/PopularVotePaper181_1.pdf

27) Analysis by Steven F. Freeman.

28) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 134

29) Jim Rutenberg, ”Report Says Problems Led to Skewing Survey Data,” The New York Times, November 5, 2004.

30) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 134

31) Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies. U.S. Count Votes. Baiman R, et al. March 31, 2005. Page 3. http://www.electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

32) Notes From Campaign Trail, Fox News Network, Live Event, 8:00 p.m. EST, November 2, 2004.

33) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 101-102

34) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 4.

35) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 120.

36) Interview with John Zogby

37) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 4.

38) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 128.

39) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 130.

40) “The Gun is Smoking: 2004 Ohio Precinct-level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount,” U.S. Count Votes, National Election Data Archive, January 23, 2006. http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf

41) ”The Gun is Smoking,” pg. 16.

42) The Washington Post, “Charting the Campaign: Top Five Most Visited States,” November 2, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/charting.html

43) John McCarthy, “Nearly a Month Later, Ohio Fight Goes On,” Associated Press Online, November 30, 2004.

44) Ohio Revised Code, 3501.04, Chief Election Officer http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC

45) Joe Hallett, ”Blackwell Joins GOP?s Spin Team,” The Columbus Dispatch, November 30, 2004.

46) Gary Fineout, ”Records Indicate Harris on Defense,” Ledger (Lakeland, Florida), November 18, 2000.

47) http://www.kenblackwell.com/

48) Joe Hallett, ”Governor; Aggressive First Round Culminates Tuesday,” Columbus Dispatch, April 30, 2006. http://www.dispatch.com/extra/extra.php?story=dispatch/2006/04/30/20060430-B1-02.html

49) Sandy Theis, ”Blackwell Accused of Breaking Law by Pushing Same-Sex Marriage Ban,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), October 29, 2004.

50) Raw Story, “Republican Ohio Secretary of State Boasts About Delivering Ohio to Bush.” http://rawstory.rawprint.com/105/blackwell_campaign_letter2_105.php

51) In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Ohio Northern Division, The Sandusky County Democratic Party et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case No. 3:04CV7582, Page 8. http://electionlawblog.org/archives/10-20%20Order.pdf

52) Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio, Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff (Rep. John Conyers, Jr.), January 5, 2005. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

53) Preserving Democracy, pg. 8.

54) Preserving Democracy, pg. 4.

55) The board of elections in Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton counties.

56) Analysis by Richard Hayes Phillips, a voting rights advocate.

57) Fritz Wenzel, ”Purging of Rolls, Confusion Anger Voters; 41% of Nov. 2 Provisional Ballots Axed in Lucas County,” Toledo Blade, January 9, 2005. http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050109/NEWS09/501090334&SearchID
=73195662517954

58) Analysis by Hayes Phillips.

59) Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

60) Preserving Democracy, pg. 6.

61) Ford Fessenden, ”A Big Increase of New Voters in Swing States,” The New York Times, September 26, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/politics/campaign/26vote.html?ex=1254024000&en=
cd9ae70cb6e69619&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

62) Ralph Z. Hallow, ”Republicans Go ?Under the Radar? in Rural Ohio,” The Washington Times, October 28, 2004. http://washtimes.com/national/20041027-115211-1609r.htm

63) Jo Becker, ”GOP Challenging Voter Registrations,” The Washington Post, October 29, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7422-2004Oct28.html

64) Janet Babin, ”Voter Registrations Challenged in Ohio,” NPR, All Things Considered, October 28, 2004.

65) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Amy Miller et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case no. C-1-04-735, Page 2. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/election2004/mlrblackwell102704ord.pdf

66) Sandy Theis, “Fraud-Busters Busted; GOP?s Blanket Challenge Backfires in a Big Way,” Plain Dealer, October 31, 2004.

67) Daniel Tokaji, “Early Returns on Election Reform,” George Washington Law Review, Vol. 74, 2005, page 1235

68) Sandy Theis, “Fraud-Busters Busted; GOP?s Blanket Challenge Backfires in a Big Way,” Plain Dealer, October 31, 2004.

69) Andrew Welsh-Huggins, ”Out of Country, Off Beaten Path; Reason for Voting Challenges Vary,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), October 27, 2004.

70) Ohio Revised Code; 3505.19

71) Directive No. 2004-44 from J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec?y of State, to All County Boards of Elections Members, Directors, and Deputy Directors 1 (Oct. 26, 2004).

72) Fritz Wenzel, ”Challenges Filed Against 931 Lucas County Voters,” Toledo Blade, October 27, 2004. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041027/
NEWS09/410270361/-1/NEWS

73) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Amy Miller et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case no. C-1-04-735, Page 4. http://news.corporatecounselcentre.ca/hdocs/docs/election2004/mlrblackwell102704ord.pdf

74) LaRaye Brown, ”Elections Board Plans Hearing For Challenges,” The News Messenger, October 26, 2004.

75) LaRaye Brown, ”Elections Board Plans Hearing For Challenges,” The News Messenger, October 26, 2004.

76) Miller v. Blackwell, (S.D. Ohio), (6th Cir. 2004) http://news.corporatecounselcentre.ca/hdocs/docs/election2004
/mlrblackwell102704ord.pdf

77) James Drew and Steve Eder, ”Court Rejects GOP Voter Challenge; Some Counties Hold Hearings Anyhow; 200 Voters Turned Away,” Toledo Blade, October 30, 2004. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041030/NEWS09/410300450/-1/NEWS

78) United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, No. 04-4186 http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/
petitionforrehearingenbanc.pdf

79) United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, No. 04-4186 http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/petitionforrehearingenbanc.pdf

80) Kate Zernike and William Yardley, ”Charges of Dirty Tricks, Fraud and Voter Suppression Already Flying in Several States,” The New York Times, November 1, 2004.

Greg Palast, “New Florida Vote Scandal Feared,” BBC News, October 26, 2004.

81) Kate Zernike and William Yardley, ”Charges of Dirty Tricks, Fraud and Voter Suppression Already Flying in Several States,” The New York Times, November 1, 2004.

82) Greg J. Borowski, ”GOP Demands IDs of 37,000 in City,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 30, 2004. http://www2.jsonline.com:80/news/metro/oct04/271173.asp

83) “The Disenfranchisement of the Re-Enfranchised; How Confusion Over Felon Voter Eligibility in Ohio Keeps Qualified Ex-Offender Voters From the Polls,” Prison Reform Advocacy Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 2004. http://www.prisonsucks.com/scans/Ohio%20Felon%20Voting%20Rights%20Paper.pdf

84) Preserving Democracy, 64.
Note: Additional reporting contributed to this paragraph.

85) Gardner Selby, ”Hundreds of Texans Ride Bandwagons Around U.S.; Volunteers Say Election is Too Important Not to Hit the Campaign Trail,” San Antonio Express-News (Texas), October 15, 2004.

86) ”Down to the Wire,” Newsweek, November 15, 2004.

87) Lynda Gorov and Anne E. Kornblut, ”Gore to Challenge Results; No Plans to Concede; top Fla. Court refuses to order resumption of Miami-Dade County,” The Boston Globe, November 24, 2000. http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Gore_to_
challenge_results+.shtml

88) Al Kamen, “Miami ?Riot? Squad: Where are they Now?” Washington Post, January 24, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html

89) Al Kamen, “Walking the Talk,” Washington Post, April 21, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042002067.html

90) Secretary of State Directive, No. 2004-31, Section II, September 7, 2004.

91) Tokaji, pg. 1227
and
Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1971(a)(2)(B) (2000).

92) Jim Bebbington and Laura Bischoff, ”Blackwell Rulings Rile Voting Advocates,” Dayton Daily News. 93) Congress of the United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, letter from Conyers to Blackwell. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohblackwellfollowupltr12304.pdf

94) Catherine Candisky, ”Secretary of State Lifts Order on Voting Forms; Lighter Paper Now Deemed Acceptable for Registration,” Columbus Dispatch, September 30, 2004.

95) Analyses of Voter Disqualification, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, November 2004, Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition, updated May 9, 2006, page 14. http://www.clevelandvotes.org/news/reports/Analyses_Full_Report.pdf

96) Analyses of Voter Disqualification, page 5.

97) Analyses of Voter Disqualification, page. 1.

98) Lucas County Board of Elections — Results of Investigation Following November 2004 General Election, April 5, 2005, Richard Weghorst and Faith Lyon. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/electionsvoter/lucas/LucasCountyInvestigationReport.pdf

99) “Feds Confirm Investigation of GOP Campaign Contributor,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 28, 2005.

100) Mark Naymik, ”Coin Dealer Raised Chunk of Change for Bush,” Plain Dealer, August 7, 2005.

101) Christopher D. Kirkpatrick, “Noe Indicted for Laundering Money to Bush Campaign,” Toledo Blade, October 27, 2005. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/
DEVELOPINGNEWS/51027023

Mike Wilkinson and James Drew, “Grand Jury Charges Noe with 53 Felony Counts,” Toledo Blade, February 13, 2006. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/BREAKINGNEWS
/60213015

102) Lucas County Report, pg. 2.

103) Lucas County Report, pg. 9.

104) Lucas County Report, pg. 10.

105) Lucas County Report, pages 9-10.

106) Lucas County Report, pg. 9.

107) Lucas County Report, pg. 9.

108) Lucas County Report, pg. 18.

109) Lucas County Report, pages 18-19.

110) Lucas County Report, pg. 19.

111) Lucas County Report, pages 4, 6.

112) Lucas County Report, pg. 6.

113) “Remarks by the President at Victory 2004 Rally,” Seagate Convention Centre, Toledo, Ohio, October 29, 2004, The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041029-16.html

note: Bernadette and Tom Noe?s last name is incorrectly spelled “Noy” in the official White House transcript.

114) Help America Vote Act, Title III, Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Election Technology and Administration Requirements, Subtitle A Requirements, Section 302. http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

115) Directive No. 2004-33 from J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec?y of State, to All County Boards of Elections 1 (Sept. 16, 2004.).

116) In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, The Sandusky County Democratic Party v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case No. 3:04CV7582, Page 8. http://electionlawblog.org/archives/10-20%20Order.pdf

117) Gregory Korte and Jim Siegel, ”Defiant Blackwell Rips Judge; Secretary Says He?d go to Jail Before Rewriting Ballot Memo,” Cincinnati Enquirer, October 22, 2004. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/22/loc_blackwell22.html

118) Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, (N.D. Ohio), (6th Cir. 2004).
And
Tokaji, pg. 1229

119)Tokaji, pg. 1231

120) ”Judge, Blackwell, Spar Over Provisional Ballots,” The Associated Press, October 20, 2004. 121) In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, The League of Women Voters of Ohio, et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case No. 3:04 CV 7622 http://www.moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/lowv/doc15a.pdf

122) David G. Savage, Richard B. Schmitt, “Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights,” Los Angeles Times, October 29, 2004. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1029-10.htm

123) Judge Julia Smith Gibbons August 2, 2002
Judge John M. Rogers November 27, 2002
Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton May 5, 2003
Judge Deborah L. Cook May 7, 2003
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_of_appeals/courtappeals_judges.htm

124) Darrell Rowland and Lee Leonard, “Federal Agency Distances Itself from Ohio Official; Blackwell Says Their Provisional-Balloting Positions are the Same,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), October 20, 2004.

125) David S. Bernstein, “Questioning Ohio,” Providence Phoenix, November 12 -18, 2004. http://www.providencephoenix.com/features/other_stories/multi_1/documents/04259695.asp

126) Norma Robbins, ”Facts to Ponder About the 2004 General Election,” May 10, 2006. http://www.clevelandvotes.org/news/reports/Facts_to_Ponder.pdf

127) Fritz Wenzel, “Purging of Rolls, Confusion Anger Voters; 41% of November 2nd Provisional Ballots Axed in Lucas County,” Toledo Blade, January 9, 2005. http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050109/NEWS09/501090334/-1/NEWS

128) Interview with Stephanie Tubbs Jones

129) Democratic National Committee, Voting Rights Institute, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio,” June 22, 2005. Page 6.

130) Democracy at Risk, pg. 5.

131) Ohio Secretary of State Web site, Provisional Ballots; Official Tabulation, November 2, 2004. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=148

132) Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, “Several Factors Contributed to ?Lost? Voters in Ohio,” Washington Post, December 15, 2004.

Christopher Hitchens, “Ohio?s Odd Numbers,” Vanity Fair. http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/050214roco05?print=true

Additional analysis by Bob Fitrakis, editor of the Columbus Free Press, and Richard Hayes Phillips.

133) Democracy at Risk, pg. 3.

134) Preserving Democracy, pg. 29.

135) Democracy at Risk, pg. 5.

136) Bernstein, Providence Phoenix 137) U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, Funding for States, http://www.eac.gov/early_money.asp
and Tokaji, pg. 1222.

138) ”The Battle Over Voting Technology,” PBS, Online NewsHour, December 16, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/sr_technology_debate.html
Paul Festa, ”States Scrutinize e-Voting as Primaries Near,” CNET News.com, December 8, 2003. http://news.com.com/States+scrutinize+e-voting+as+primaries+near/2100-1028_3-5114062.html

139) Preserving Democracy, pg. 27.

140) Preserving Democracy, pg. 30.

141) Matt Damschroder, chairman of Franklin County Board of Elections. 142) Preserving Democracy, pg. 26. 143) Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, “Several Factors Contributed to ‘Lost’ Voters in Ohio,” Washington Post, December 15, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64737-2004Dec14?language=printer

144) Correspondence with Matt Damschroder.

145) Suzanne Hoholik and Mark Ferenchik, “GOP Council Hopes Rising; Party expects ruling on peititions will put its candidate on ballot,” Columbus Dispatch, March 26, 2003.

146) Preserving Democracy, pg. 25.

147) Mark Niquette, “GOP Strongholds Saw Increase in Voting Machines,” Columbus Dispatch, December 12, 2004. http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2004/12/12/20041212-A1-03
.html&rfr=nwsl

148) Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, “Several Factors Contributed to ‘Lost’ Voters in Ohio,” Washington Post, December 15, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64737-2004Dec14.html

149) Columbus Free Press editor, Bob Fitrakis.

150) “Voting Machine Allocation in Franklin County, Ohio, 2004: Response to the U.S. Department of Justice Letter of June 29, 2005,” Walter R. Mebane, Jr., February 11, 2006, Page 13. http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/franklin2.pdf

151) Tokaji, pg. 1238.

Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. C2 04 1055, (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2004).

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLinecomplaint.pdf

152) Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. C2 04 1055, (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2004). http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLinecomplaint.pdf

153) Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. C2 04 1055, slip op. At 1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2004). http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLineOrder.pdf

154) Washington Post, “Several Factors Contributed to ‘Lost’ Voters in Ohio,” Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, December 15, 2004.

155) Preserving Democracy, pg. 25.

156) Affidavit of Richard Hayes Phillips, December 10, 2004. http://www.yuricareport.com/2004%20Election%20Fraud/AffidavitPhillipsShowsKerryCouldWinOhio.html

157) Mark Niquette, “Finally, It’s Time to Vote; U.S. Appeals Court Overturns Ban, Allows Challengers Back in Polling Sites,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), November 2, 2004.

158) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Marian A. Spencer, et. al., v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case no. C-1-04-738, page 3. http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pdf/Spencer.65.ord.pdf

159) James Dao, “The 2004 Campaign: Ohio, G.O.P. Bid to Contest Registrations is Blocked,” The New York Times, October 28, 2004. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20C11FA39590C7B8EDDA90994DC404482

160) Marian A. Spencer, et. al., v. J. Kenneth Blackwell; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division; Case no. C-1-04-738. http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pdf/Spencer.65.ord.pdf

161) Dan Horn, Howard Wilkinson, and Cindi Andrews, “Supreme Court Justice Allows Challengers,” Cincinnati Enquirer. http://www.enquirer.com/midday/11/11032004_News_mday_challengers03.html

162) Tokaji, pages 1237-1238.

163) Democracy at Risk, pg. 20.

164) The Columbus Free Press.

165) “Errors Plague Voting Process in Ohio, Pa.” The Vindicator, November 3, 2004, Vindicator Staff Report http://www.vindy.com/basic/news/281829446390855.php

166) Voters Unite catalogues news reports from around the country that give examples of dysfunctional voting machines, among other election stories. http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=ALL
&selectproblemtype=Machine+malfunction

167) The Columbus Free Press.

168) Jim Woods, “In One Precinct, Bush’s Tally was Supersized by a Computer Glitch,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), November 5, 2004.

169) Hitchens, Vanity Fair.

170) Letter from J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State, to Doug White, President, Ohio Senate 3 (Feb. 26, 2004).

171) Sixty-eight counties used punch card ballots. Thirteen used optical scan machines. Seven used touch-screen technology.

172) Malia Rulon, “Congressman Calls For FBI Investigation Into Ohio Election,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, December 15, 2004.

173) Tokaji, Page 1221.

174) Jim Konkoly, ”Volunteers Complete Local Recount,” Coshocton Tribune, December 18, 2004.

175) New York Times, “Voting Problems in Ohio Spur Call for Overhaul,” James Dao, Ford Fessenden, December 24, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html?ex=1261544400&en=
0e0adbe08ff79c22&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

176) Ken McCall and Jim Bebbington, ”Two Precincts had High Undercounts, Analysis Shows,”Dayton Daily News, November 18, 2004.

177) Lisa A. Abraham, “Punch-Card Voting is Illegal,” Akron Beacon Journal, April 22, 2006. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14404305.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

178) Analysis by Hayes Phillips.

179) Preserving Democracy, pg. 57.

180) Analysis by Hayes Phillips.

181) Analysis completed by using official tallies on the Ohio Secretary of State Web site.
Official tallies for Kerry:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=135

Official tallies for Connally:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=138

182) Preserving Democracy, pg. 55.

183. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=135

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=138

184. Letter from Rep. John Conyers to Chris Swecker, assistant director of the Criminal Investigative Division at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. See attached affidavits.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohelecfbifollowupltr12805.pdf

185. Miami County Board of Elections.

186. Confirmed by Bob Fitrakis of the Free Press

187. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

188. Erin Miller, “Board Awaits State Follow Up,” The Evening Leader.

http://www.theeveningleader.com/articles/2004/11/06/news/news.01.txt

189. “Preserving Democracy,” pages 58-59.

190. The Associated Press, “News Groups Sue Ohio Elections Chief Over Poll Access,” Associated Press, November 2, 2004.

and

Mark Crispin Miller, “None Dare Call It Stolen,” Harper’s, August 2005.

http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html

191. Incidents in Warren County were catalogued in a series of articles by the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Erica Solving, “No Changes in Final Warren Co. Vote Count; E-mails Released Monday Show Lockdown Pre-planned,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 16, 2004.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041116/NEWS01/411160355/1056

Erica Solving, “Warren’s Vote Tally Walled Off; Alone in Ohio, Officials Cited Homeland Security,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 5, 2004.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/05/loc_warrenvote05.html

Erica Solvig and Dan Horn, “Warren Co. Defends Lockdown Decision; FBI denies warning officials of any special threat,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 10, 2004.

Erica Solvig, “Warren Co. Recount Goes Public; After Election Night lockdown, security eases up,” Cincinnati Enquirer, December 15, 2004.

192. Erica Solvig, “Warren’s Vote Tally Walled Off; Alone in Ohio, Officials Cited Homeland Security,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 5, 2004.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/05/loc_warrenvote05.html

193. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on the Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

194. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 52.

195. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on the Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

196. Joan Mazzolini, “Workers Accused of Fudging ’04 Recount; Prosecutor Says Cuyahoga Skirted Rules,” The Plain Dealer, April 6, 2006.

http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/
1144312870224340.xml&coll=2

197. Malia Rulon, “Congressman Calls for FBI Investigation Into Ohio election,” The Associated Press, December 15, 2004.

198. Affidavit, December 13, 2004, Sherole Eaton, Re: General Election 2004, Hocking County.

http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/5.121004.Robersondep.pdf

199. Jon Craig, “’04 Election in Hocking County; Worker Who Questioned Recount is Asked to Quit,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), June 1st, 2005.

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/06/01/20050601-B3-03
.html&chck=t

200. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 81.

201. www.opensecrets.org

202. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 82.

203. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 83.

204. Ohio Secretary of State’s press office.

205. Count Every Vote Act of 2005

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_493.pdf

206. Dena Bunis, “Senate Limits Immigration Debate,” The Orange County Register, May 24, 2006.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1153484.php

207. Tokaji’s blog, Election Law at Moritz, “McConnell’s Voter ID Amendment,” May 22, 2006.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/05/mcconnells-voter-id-amendment.html

208. United States District Court Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/Order%20Granting%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20email.pdf

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

Reposted from Rolling Stone Magazine

Comments Off on Was the 2004 Election Stolen? · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

Democratic Underground BOOKMARKS

Posted in Democratic Underground, General on January 28th, 2006

A Full Recount Would Show that LÃ³pez Obrador Won Mexicoâ€™s Presidency by Mo	Laotra	Sun Jul-09-06 10:27 AM

BRAD BLOG: 2 New Suits Against Diebold & Friends, New Busby/Bilbray Stuff!	BradBlog	Thu Jul-13-06 02:41 PM

Mexico: Rightist “winner’s” Brother-in-law Wrote VOTE COUNT Software – WOW	autorank	Wed Jul-12-06 04:33 PM
LA Times asks the $50,000 Question, Bush: War Criminal?	Vyan	Sun Jul-02-06 10:17 AM

Bradblog: New lawsuit seeks immediate decertification of Diebold!!	Stevepol	Thu Jul-13-06 07:47 AM
“The Stolen Election of 2004” by Michael Parenti	mod mom	Fri Jul-14-06 07:28 AM
Greene Co OH ’04 Recount Irregularities Detailed Under Oath	mod mom	Sat Jul-08-06 03:38 AM
Salon: Mexico 2006: Florida all over again?	kpete	Fri Jul-07-06 10:41 PM
LIVE NOW: DU’s TruthIsAll on the Mike Malloy Show (+ post)	kster	Sat Jul-08-06 05:27 AM
Citizen Clinton Speaks Out: Former President Raises Cain – Almost	althecat	Thu Jul-06-06 01:12 PM
KY: Grand Jury Refers Election Probe to Special Panel	Wilms	Sun Jul-02-06 09:27 AM


Rolling Stone: Kennedy: company insiders are prepared to testify (2006)	ProSense	Sat Jul-01-06 12:48 PM

Washington Post, “A single person could swing an election.”	Botany	Thu Jun-29-06 01:35 PM
A call to investigate the 2004 election	ProSense	Wed Jun-28-06 10:53 AM

Long Version of Clinton’s REMARKS (thanks to MCM for finding!)	mod mom	Sat Jul-01-06 03:04 AM
Here we go again. Grand jury probes election inconsistencies in KY.	Stevepol	Sat Jul-01-06 06:57 AM
CA: Tally is Rising in Registration Fraud	Wilms	Wed Jun-28-06 08:20 AM


over 1000 metric tons of the deadly U238-isotope	serryjw	Fri Jun-23-06 06:11 PM
New Report Shows 17 States at High Risk For Compromised Election Results	sfexpat2000	Sat Jun-24-06 05:56 AM
Hey, everybody! Las Vegas is going BANKRUPT!!!	IdaBriggs	Sun Jun-18-06 12:18 PM

“Emergency Townhall Meetings” CA-50 Here we go!	kansasblue	Fri Jun-23-06 05:05 PM
Scoop: Bush Election Theft Saga Heats Up In Ohio	Wilms	Tue Jun-20-06 07:15 PM
Best sites & resources for election fraud NEWBIES ?	IndyOp	Sat Jun-17-06 10:22 PM


NYT Bob Herbert: Kerry ‘almost certainly’ won Ohio in 2004	drm604	Wed Jun-14-06 07:48 AM

1/2 of Bush victory margin in New Mexico in 2004 ghost votes	MissWaverly	Fri Jun-16-06 01:39 PM
CA-50 2nd Edition, I look at the April 11th Special Primary	FogerRox	Mon Jun-12-06 10:12 AM

Most charges dropped in phone jamming RW election fraud	unpossibles	Fri Jun-16-06 07:45 AM
Greg Palast: African-American Voters Scrubbed by Secret GOP Hit List	kpete	Fri Jun-16-06 10:30 AM
Courageous Schakowsky (D-IL): WAS 2004 ELECTION STOLEN? “ONLY ANSWER YES”	IndyOp	Fri Jun-16-06 12:19 PM
It Only Takes One Man To Steal an Election (And It’s Not Who You Think)	McCamy Taylor	Thu Jun-15-06 08:58 AM
Yurica Report in support of RFK article: A Vast Political Misfortune	Ojai Person	Wed Jun-14-06 07:20 PM
AUTORANK Kennedyâ€™s Challenge – Salon, Mother Jones & the Tortured Dialogue	althecat	Thu Jun-15-06 09:36 AM
Massive voter suppression in South Carolina election today?	IndyOp	Wed Jun-14-06 02:29 PM
DNC contacts Brad–they’re looking into Busby/Bilbray race in CA	emlev	Wed Jun-14-06 08:55 PM
NYT Bob Herbert (via RawStory): Kerry ‘almost certainly’ won Ohio in 2004	eomer	Mon Jun-12-06 06:43 PM
Illegitimate election-Key RFK Source-Responds to Criticism of 04 Election	kpete	Thu Jun-15-06 06:29 PM
NO, THIS IS IT FOLKS!:	Bill Bored	Sun Jun-11-06 10:14 AM
From the ERD: RECORDS FOR 150,000 COLO. VOTERS MISSING	rumpel	Sun Jun-11-06 11:26 PM
Dr. Ron Baiman: Something Smells Fishy in San Diego – cross post from GDP	bleever	Sun Jun-11-06 05:09 AM
bradblog: BUSBY/BILBRAY ELECTION IN DOUBT	Wilms	Sat Jun-10-06 09:47 AM


Debunking the Debunker	CrisisPapers	Wed Jun-07-06 08:47 AM

Howard Dean on Diebold: “These machines are a problem”	kpete	Sun Apr-23-06 02:55 PM
Cramdown, Stripdown, Lockdown Democracy In The USA – By DU’s Own Autorank	althecat	Sat Apr-22-06 02:52 PM
Phone records… people in election phone jamming called White House!	AGENDA21	Tue Apr-11-06 11:03 AM

28,000 votes stolen from Kerry in Lucas County (Toledo); Noe @ Work	Botany	Sat Jun-10-06 03:26 AM
WHAT in the Heck does this RFK, Jr. guy WANT anyway?? Man-o-man!!!	Land Shark	Wed Jun-07-06 05:50 PM
Debate over Rolling Stone Article ignores what’s Important to USA	Land Shark	Tue Jun-06-06 05:23 PM
Rolling Stone Editorial: A Call for Investigation (Election 2004)	ProSense	Sat Jun-10-06 08:55 PM
Ken Blackwell must be stopped	BobcatJH	Wed May-10-06 09:43 PM
6th Circuit opinion (4-21-06) Holds Op-SCan & P-cards Unconstitutional!!!	Land Shark	Tue Apr-25-06 06:13 PM

Scoop, NZ: The Theft Of The 2004 Presidential Election	seafan	Fri Jun-09-06 12:45 AM
THIS IS IT FOLKS.	garybeck	Sun Jun-11-06 08:33 PM
Dr Ron Baiman: “CLEARLY A CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN OHIO”	mod mom	Mon Jun-12-06 06:55 AM
Candidate Clint Curtis Praises RFK Jr – Calls For Fed Investigation	kpete	Sun Jun-11-06 07:51 AM
Machines change votes in Iowa	BeFree	Fri Jun-09-06 09:10 PM
Results of Close Busby/Bilbray U.S. House Special Election in Doubt	feelthebreeze	Thu Jun-08-06 09:54 PM
So Dark the Con of Ken:Blackwell Sins In ’04 Coming Back To Haunt Him	Algorem	Wed Jun-14-06 05:25 AM
Brand new e-voting machines fail in early voting hours in Kern Co., CA.	Cleita	Thu Jun-08-06 12:14 AM
Fitrakis responds to Tokaji’s analysis of RFK Jr:	mod mom	Mon Jun-12-06 08:58 PM
Cliff Arnebeck’s response to Farhad Manjoo article:	mod mom	Thu Jun-08-06 11:14 AM
Fitrakis responds to Manjoo’s Salon article:	mod mom	Thu Jun-08-06 09:21 AM
USA TODAY: Spate of Lawsuits Target e-Voting	Wilms	Mon Jun-05-06 06:42 AM
RFK, Jr & Salon’s Manjoo & DU Election Reformers Agree On:	IndyOp	Mon Jun-05-06 11:08 PM
Bush – Most Hated President Ever Stole Both Elections	WillYourVoteBCounted	Mon Jun-05-06 02:56 PM
Diebold video, 46 seconds, at “Current TV” website.	Eric J in MN	Wed Jun-07-06 09:48 PM
Bobby Kennedy JR. on ’04 election theft in feature Rolling Stone article	Amaryllis	Thu Jun-01-06 06:41 AM
Convicted Phone Jammer now teaching @ GOP Campaign School	mod mom	Wed May-31-06 11:27 AM
Preemptive election theft: Is Turdblossom working the CA-45th?	kpete	Mon May-29-06 10:25 PM
Paper Ballots, Hand Counted, are the “Gold Standard” Around the World	Wilms	Mon May-29-06 10:17 PM
NM: Court Says That State Should Have Allowed (2004) Recount	Wilms	Mon May-29-06 08:43 PM
4 STEPS TO HOW THE GOP STOLE THE ’04 ELECTION (and will repeat again)	mod mom	Sun May-28-06 05:51 PM
Gore: No Intermediate Step Between SCOTUS Decision and Violent Revolution	Wilms	Thu May-25-06 05:53 AM
“2004 Presidential Election â€“ Compendium of Attempts to Dismiss Vote Fraud	papau	Wed May-24-06 04:27 AM
UNDISPUTED – HURSTI HACK IS BOTH NEW MATERIAL AND TOTALLY DEVASTATING	kster	Fri May-26-06 07:46 PM
Exit Poll Margin of Error in North Carolina 2004	BeFree	Tue May-23-06 04:11 PM
Will MSNBC put this ON TV ?	kster	Tue May-23-06 03:35 PM
ANOTHER 100+ Machines Fail in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh)!	Amaryllis	Wed May-17-06 01:51 PM
Paul Weyrich GOP strategy: Our election wins increase as # voters decrease	IndyOp	Tue May-16-06 08:28 PM
Its the Voting Stupid ! Blogged by John Conyers,Jr.	Twist_U_Up	Tue May-16-06 01:04 AM
Update on David G. Mills’ Tennessee Lawsuit on the Unconstitionality of Pa	Febble	Mon May-15-06 09:32 PM
New York Times — Black Box Voting study “biggest ever”	patriothackd	Sat May-20-06 05:12 AM
BradBlog/John Gideon: Diebold’s Deliberate Security Vulnerability	Wilms	Fri May-12-06 05:26 AM
Poll: 2004 Election Was Stolen; according to viewers of all news except	Kip Humphrey	Thu May-11-06 08:17 PM
Harri Hursti Report II – Diebold touch-screens	Steve A Play	Sun May-14-06 09:24 AM
May 10 – 4 Arizona Voters Sue Secretary of State	WillYourVoteBCounted	Thu May-11-06 04:30 AM
Local Boards of Elections Blocking Thousands of New Yorkers from Voting	eomer	Wed May-10-06 03:06 PM
BREAKING: SEC INVESTIGATION OF DIEBOLD UNDER WAY!	BradBlog	Wed May-10-06 09:40 AM
AMERICAN BLACKOUT-a must see film: from FL to GA to Franklin Co OH	mod mom	Tue May-09-06 05:01 AM
$13 Million No-Bid Sweetheart Deal with Diebold Draws Fire from activists	Amaryllis	Wed May-10-06 07:57 AM
(Ohio) Vote counting goes on up north	MelissaB	Sun May-07-06 06:27 PM
BBV: more dirt on Diebold, possible lawsuits, heroic officials lauded	Stevepol	Tue May-09-06 02:22 AM
NEWLY DISCOVERED DIEBOLD THREAT DESCRIBED AS ‘N ATIONAL SECURITY RISK’	Amaryllis	Fri May-05-06 08:31 PM
WANTED: This person voted over 6,000 times on 11/2/04	garybeck	Wed May-03-06 06:36 PM
Brad: National media finally covers 2006 electoral meltdown	Amaryllis	Fri May-05-06 05:39 AM
Brad: Indiana and West Va file legal actions against ES&S	Amaryllis	Sat Apr-29-06 01:26 PM
Help with Ohio Parallel Election (contact info)	mod mom	Thu Apr-27-06 12:54 PM
Blackwell Distributes Voter Lists with SS Numbers	mod mom	Tue Apr-25-06 10:16 AM
(Bradblog) Friedman briefs Feingold on election fraud !	kansasblue	Mon Apr-24-06 08:10 AM
Clear paper ballot counter, transporter and storage box	kster	Mon Jun-05-06 09:12 PM
Cramdown, Stripdown, Lockdown Democracy In The USA	Wilms	Mon Apr-24-06 06:18 AM
Free Press uncovers evidence of ballot tampering in Warren County, Ohio	Wilms	Sun Apr-23-06 04:51 PM
		Wed Dec-31-69 04:00 PM
HOPE? Slew of lawsuits hit the voting machine companies	garybeck	Fri Apr-28-06 10:34 AM
FreePress: Evidence of Ballot Tampering in Warren Co Ohio in ’04	mod mom	Wed Apr-26-06 07:16 PM
Brad: OR SOS Bradbury sues ES&S; says “we will not be coerced”	Amaryllis	Fri Apr-21-06 02:09 AM
Asked @125 judges if confident every vote counted…no hands went up	Wilms	Wed Apr-19-06 05:53 AM
PA Lawsuit: John Gideon and Joe Hall Illuminate	Wilms	Mon Apr-17-06 06:55 PM
Update from Alaska…	Blue_In_AK	Thu Apr-13-06 06:22 PM
MUST READ! – E-VOTING 2006: The Approaching Train Wreck (+)	kster	Tue Apr-11-06 02:52 PM
HOLT’S RESPONSE!: MARK IT UP!	Bill Bored	Thu Apr-13-06 09:07 PM
Motion Filed Before Judge Carr Seeking Reconsideration in Recount Case	eomer	Sun Apr-09-06 09:38 AM
Election Day troubles could be part of ‘international conspiracy’	kpete	Sun Apr-09-06 09:58 AM
With voting machine company now bankrupt, CEO speaks out:	kster	Sat Apr-08-06 11:58 AM
Recount FIXED in Ohio for 04 Presidential Contest	me b zola	Thu Apr-06-06 04:43 PM
Shocking Diebold Conflict of Interest	kpete	Fri Apr-07-06 04:05 PM
No Voting Machines for Leon County: You Won’t Believe Why	kster	Tue Apr-04-06 07:35 AM
Susan Sarandon calls for outside monitoring of US elections due to fraud	Amaryllis	Tue Apr-04-06 06:14 PM

Comments Off on Democratic Underground BOOKMARKS · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

2004 Election Theft.com: Take Action!

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, General, TAKE ACTION! on January 28th, 2006

Please help these organizations and recount efforts:

BlackBoxVoting: Help America Audit — 5 Things You Can Do Immediately
2004 Vote Fraud Petition – Please sign!
BlackBoxVoting.org
HelpAmericaRecount.org
VotCobb.org
RecountOhio.org
DemocraticUnderground.com
Investigate E-Voting Machines – send a letter to your reps.
Keep Ohio Recount Non-Partisan: Ask Secretary Blackwell to Step Aside
SIGN UP HERE: Join VOTE FRAUD WORK (write, organize, research, kick) Team on Democratic Underground
MEDIA CONTACTS– nice huge list
7 Items for your Tool Kit — to Get the Vote Back! by Zan_of_Texas on DU (11/22)
Alliance for Democracy (action resource!) (11/28)
John B. Kenney (hunger strike-donations) (11/28)
Investigate the Vote – MoveOn.org (11/29)
Dec. 4th Ohio Rally!
“You Stole My Vote” 51 Capital March SUNDAY, DECEMBER 12TH 2004 at Noon Everywhere!
It’s up to us (List of links for next week’s Media Blast) from DoYouEverWonder on DU (11/30)
Voting in 2004: A Report to the Nation on America’s Election Process on commoncause.org (11/30)
Stolen Election 2004 – Action Alerts !! (13/4)
Easy online activism. Let’s do it!! from Carl Brennan on DU (12/7)
RED HANDS MOVEMENT – Find or announce a rally, DL flyers, etc. (12/10)
VotersUnite.org- Take Action: Participate in Project Myth Breaker (12/10)
Open Letter to the Electoral College – Petition (12/12)
Voting Rights Kit for Taking Action or download the kit from PDA.org (12/12)
What Can We the People Do About Election Fraud? (4/27/05)
Sign MoveOn’s Petition to Repair the Vote!
Save Our Elections! – Common Cause
HELP find the smoking gun…
Join US CountVotes ! – this VERY important organization needs your time and money to save our democracy!
Instructions and sample letter for FOIA requests from USCV
SUPPORT INDEPENDENT WORLD TELEVISION!
SolarBus.org list of “Nation Sites and Organizations”
SolarBus.org list of “State Groups”
National Election Reform Conference in Portland Sept. 30 – Oct. 2
Reform OHIO Now!
Citizens’ Audit | Parallel Election – we need to do this!!
California Election Protection Network – (10/04/2005)
Sign the Voter Confidence Petition in Support of H.R. 550
Support the vote – PAD

Comments Off on 2004 Election Theft.com: Take Action! · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

2004 Election Theft.com: State by State

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, General on January 28th, 2006

(AK AZ CA CO FL GA IL IN IA MD MN MO NE NV NH NJ NM NC OH PA TX UT VA VT WA WI WY)

Alaska:

200% Voter Turnout in Alaska – Blue_In_AK on DU (Dec-21-05)
AK: Democrats question (2004) vote results – Tabulation method…doubted – wilms on DU (Dec-21-05)
State (AK) Refuses to Release Public Records-Claims Diebold Data is Proprietary – Wilms (Feb-07-06)
State (Alaska) to turn over voting files from 2004 to Democrats – Blue_In_AK (Feb-11-06)
“NO, YES, NO: Alaska Now Refuses Release of 2004 Election Data Citing Security Concerns!” – BradBlog (2/24/06)

Arizona:

27,878 Provisional Votes thrown out. by Wilms (1/30/05)
‘Serious problems’ found in AZ election results – garybeck (Wed May-25-05)
Pentagon Seeks Power Over Elections in Arizona – Wilms (Jan-30-06)
AZ: FBI seizes ballots in close ’04 legislative race – Wilms (Feb-03-06)
3. AZ: Maricopa County (Phoenix) â€“ Huge Republican Election Fraud Scandal – kster (Feb-22-06)

California:

Editorial: The new Palm Beach? (San Diego) (11/27)
New analysis of California data – backs up Madsen’s claims – READ IT! from ClintCooper2003 on DU (12/6)
Mocking democracy: San Diego Mayoral Race Results Certified from Rose Siding on DU (12/8)
Citizens Request Recount in San Diego Mayoral Race – “Enron by the Sea” – raw story (Thursday August 18, 2005)
California Election Protection Network – (10/04/2005)
Why they went after Kevin Shelley and what it means for CA elections – Amaryllis on DU (Sun Nov-06-05)
Crime Report: Los Angeles Denies Public Access to Central Tabulator – Einsteinia on DU (Wed Nov-09-05)
Is Los Angeles Above the Law? – Einsteinia (Sat Nov-05-05)
Brad: Something very rotten suddenly occuring in CA, plus more on OH – Amaryllis on DU (Fri Nov-18-05)
California Citizens Coordinate Diebold Takedown – GuvWorld on DU (Dec-17-05 )
Deborah Bowen (CA Dem4SoS) throws down gauntlet on secret vote counting! – Peace Patriot (Dec-31-05)
SHIT!!! Diebold to be certified in CA … with yet-unstated conditions. – nicknameless (Feb-21-06)
Despite Illegalities, Diebold Election Machines Certified In CA– GuvWurld ( Feb-19-06)
Is The GOP “Shock-The-Vote Gang” Planning to Heist California? – AtLiberty (Feb-21-06)
WOW! ** CA’s Sen Bowen Rips rethug SoS over Diebold Certification ** (3/1) – nicknameless (Mar-02-06)
LEGAL ACTION TO BE FILED IN CALIFORNIA TO ‘HALT USE OR PURCHASE OF DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINES’ IN STATE! – BradBlog (3/20/2006)
Choice Point in CA?! THOUSANDS already kicked off of voter rolls.– nicknameless (Mar-30-06)
CA’s rethug SoS made a deal with bush to eliminate eligible voters!! – nicknameless (Mar-31-06)

Colorado:

Activists protest electronic voting Denver Post (11/21)
Colorado protest pictures..spread these around the internet! Denver Voice (11/18)
Major fraud in Colorado? from ClintCooper2003 on DU (12/12)

Florida:

CLOSE TO EVIDENCE!!! – palm beach county, FL
I Smell a Rat…odor of Republicanus floridius [by a polling expert]
Were the absentee ballots lost or stolen? Either way, it’s a crime. (Broward County)
Orange County discrepancy–8,400 VOTES!
8400 Vote Orange County Bush Jump â€“ Absentee Ballots?
Congressional candidate Jeff Fisher says Florida vote was hacked, and he knows who did it and how!
Jeff Fisher – sounding real and real scary… Reader Beware
Something Rotten in the State of Florida
Broward machines count backward
Very Odd Results in Florida
Bush wins by 5% in Florida yet his Latino vote in Florida was down 15%!!!
Palm Beach County Logs 88,000 More Votes Than Voters
MiamiHerald.com: “Hackers rigging voting machines a real possibility”
Busting the Dixiecrat myth
Did Bush Lose… Again? (“optical scam” machines…debunks dixiecrat myth)
Volusia County election records just got put on lockdown – Bev Harris (MUST READ!)
Local couple travel to Florida to watch polls
WAS IT HACKED? – Orlando Weekly News
Berkeley’s published report is available to read. Oh-oh, Jeb. (at LEAST 130,000 extra Bush votes)
‘Stinking Evidence’ of Possible Election Fraud Found in Florida
Florida counties stonewall records requests. – update on blackboxvoting.org (11/22)
Volusia County lawsuit alleges irregularities in Nov. 2, 2004 election – blackboxvoting.org (11/24)
UPDATE: Florida litigation on voting issues, from Black Box Voting by Bev Harris (11/24)
***Election 2004: 73 SCHOOLS LOCKEDDOWN IN PALM BEACH *** Carl Brennan on DU (11/26)
Miami Herald article shows that Kerry may have won Florida! from pointsoflight on DU – BRILLIANT! (11/29)
Black Box Voting files lawsuit against Palm Beach County Elections Division (11/30)
Dixiecrats or not, FL results unbelievable from ccarter84 on DU (12/1)
Florida – Suit seeks to overturn election – from dzika on DU (12/2)
Florida Election Anomalies and Voter Suppression – collection of links(12/2)
Comparison of Democratic and Republican Populations and Vote Counts in Florida from 2000 to 2004 (12/5)
FLORIDA – 33 OF 34 VOTED FOR KERRY BUT THE MACHINE CAME UP BUSH from TruthIsAll on DU (12/5)
Who supervised the removal of 21 Florida e-voting machines in Broward County? BlueLemur (12/6)
BUSTED? Pynchon thinks there’s something rotten in Volusia from sabra on DU (12/8)
MAJOR FRAUD IN FLORIDA? from ClintCooper2003 on DU (12/12)
Fraud(Default to Bush) documented in Florida touchscreen county machines by berniew1 (12/22)
‘New Times Broward-Palm Beach’ Jumps into Feeney, Yang (YEI), Curtis Fray! [UPDATED] – BradBlog (2/08/05)
Whistle blower alleges U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney might have rigged South Florida Election from pbartch (2/19/05)
S. Florida : Sorry, your votes won’t count. We made a mistake. from berniew1 (2/28/05)
FL Optiscans vs. Touchscreens:Prob of 9.03% discrepancy-1 in 12.7 trillion – TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-17-05)
FL Vote analysis: Using registration, machine type, NEP Party ID stats. – TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-17-05)
Are these Florida Precinct Reports a smoking gun or not? – adolfo (Wed Apr-06-05)
Discrepancies found in 35 percent of Miami-Dade precincts by garybeck (Fri May-06-05)
Votes counted three times (Dade County) audit shows – IChing (Wed May-25-05)
Optical scan machines hacked in Florida – rightfoot (Sun May-29-05)
Palm Beach County fails BBV audit – twilight zone, basically – rightfoot (Wed Jun-08-05)
Leon County Fla. Report on Hacked Machines – BeFree (Sat Jun-04-05)
FEMA Chief Brown Paid Millions in False Claims to Help Bush Win Fla. Votes in ’04 By Jason Leopold (Sat Sep-10-05)
BREAKING: Florida Improperly Certified Diebold TSX – AmBlue on DU (Mon Nov-28-05)
Leon County dumps Diebold!!! BBV Breaking News!!! – Einsteinia on DU ( Dec-16-05)
Brad Blog: Volusia County, FL Dumps Diebold Too! – understandinglife (Dec-16-05)
Watchdog Group Questions 2004 Fla. Vote (+) – kster (Feb-24-06)
Miami Herald: Election official hammered for telling truth about Diebold – Amaryllis (Mar-08-06)
“AP: 100,000 ERRORS REPORTED ON SEQUOIA VOTING MACHINES IN PALM BEACH, FL 2004 ELECTION!” – BradBlog (2/23/06)
FL: Ion Sancho Initiates Legal Proceedings Against Diebold – Wilms (Mar-08-06)
Gov. Jeb Bush, S.o.S. Sue Cobb threaten Leon Co. election takeover! – Steve A Play (Mar-08-06)
St. Pete Times: “No conspiracy needed to support paper trail” -MSM, guys! – Amaryllis (Mar-13-06)

Georgia:

Mark Crispin Miller: Secret ballot compromised in Georgia! – (Fri Jun-24-05)
Congresswoman McKinney Reveals Shocking Data on Diebold and Elections in Georgia – Fly by night (Wed Jul-20-05)

Illinois:

Chicago Tribune reporting many problems with Sequoia machines in Illinois – xray s (Mar-23-06)

Indiana:

Computer glitch still baffles county clerk (affects Dem county in Indiana)
Another screw-up in Indiana! Kerry losing thousands of votes to Bednarik.
Voting machine glitch changes election
3 more counties report errors Franklin Co. equipment trouble wasn’t an isolated incident
IN: Centralized Registration Database PROBLEMS. Test May 2nd. – autorank (Mar-20-06)

Iowa:

Bush won Iowa by 10,000 (less than 1%–qualifies for a recount) by carolab on DU (11/18)

Maryland:

Observers find 201 e-voting problems in Maryland by Grant Gross (11/23)
In Response to Hursti Hack, MD Election Admin. Expresses â€˜Great Concernâ€™ – Wilms (Feb-08-06)
UNCERTIFIED! (Maryland) – Bill Bored (Feb-18-06)
Bradblog: VERY good news RE: Diebold in MD! Go get ’em, gov & MD house! – Amaryllis (Mar-06-06)
TrueVote MD releases docs detailing Diebold failures, violations of law – Amaryllis (Mar-08-06)
Maryland House votes to oust Diebold machines – FogerRox (Mar-10-06)
Brad:MD House Votes 137 to 0 to Ban Diebold Touch-Screens in 2006! – Amaryllis (Mar-11-06)
“Touch Screen Voting Isn’t the Right Answer” Balt.Sun-This is really good!– Amaryllis (Apr-01-06)

Minnesota:

Major fraud in Minnesota? from ClintCooper2003 on DU (12/12)
Please Help! Vote siphoning from Kerry to 3rd parties in Minnesota – IndyOp (Sat Jul-23-05)

Missouri:

“Report of evidence sent to US Attorneys, Missouri Reps, State Auditor etc” Matt Fox, Ph.D. (11/29)

Nebraska:

More Votes than Voters in Nebraska

Nevada:

A CRY FOR HELP FROM BATTLE-STATION NEVADA by shraby on DU (11/20)
nevada! please help on DU (11/21)
BREAKING NEWS: Glibs to Recount NM and NV!!
for everyone asking questions about the NV paper trail … from NVMojo on DU (11/30)
JUDGE TO CHALLENGE BUSH ELECTORAL VOTES IN NEVADA from Karenca on DU (11/30)
Inside the Nevada Numbers: Christmas Comes Early for the Republicans from ignatzmouse on DU (11/30)
Why the “Greens” Dropped Nevada from Recount Efforts…Just So You Know. from KoKo01 on DU (12/5)
Judge orders release of Nevada presidential election public records from Amaryllis on DU (1/25/05)
NEVADA LEGAL SHOWDOWN from JoMama49 on DU (1/20/05)

New Hampshire:

Presidential ballots to be recounted
NH Recount shows Straight Dem Party votes miscounted! by FullCountNotRecount on DU (11/20)
Recount finds few changes (bad news, but of course only 11 of 301 precincts were recounted..hmmm) (11/30)
NH: Doing time for election fraud!!! NH Republican – autorank on DU (Dec-20-05)

New Jersey:

Proposed law in NJ to outlaw paper ballots – FogerRox (Feb-10-06)
NJ Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Challenging Electronic Voting – Wilms (Feb-13-06)

New Mexico:

Fishy New Mexico Numbers
NM – Absentee and Provisional Ballot Rejection Rate – 50%+
NM could flip for Kerry (it has tightened dramatically) 11/15
weirdness in NM
Bingo! “Prima Facie” for New Mexico from indigoblue on DU (11/29)
BREAKING NEWS: Glibs to Recount NM and NV!!
New Mexico Was Blue: 18,659 Missing E-Votes from ignatzmouse on DU (12/5)
Strong evidence/doc. Kerry won New Mexico-Make sure Recount Happens from berniew1 on DU (12/22)
THEY HAVE FILED LAWSUITS IN NEW MEXICO!!!! from pbartch on DU (1/25/05)
New Mexico lawsuit update – garybeck – SolarBus.org (Thu Sep-29-05)
Legal Battle for 2004 Recount Continues in New Mexico – by David Edwards (9/06/2005)
BradBlog: Plaintiffs Suddenly Blocked in New Mexico ’04 Election Lawsuit – Nothing Without Hope on DU (Sat Nov-12-05)
Looks like Bill Richardson (NM) has turned into a lion for paper ballot!! – Stevepol (Jan-29-06)

North Carolina:

Unofficial Audit of NC Election: Comprehensive Case for Fraud by ignatzmouse on DU
NC Unofficial Audit Part 2: Inside the Black Box by ignatzmouse on DU (11/22)
Election problems due to a software glitch (11,283 x-tra for Bush in N.C )
Fiasco in North Carolina
NC Transfer Error Misses 12,000 Votes
State to probe Gaston election – Charlotte Observer (11/19)
NC Problems reported in the media by pointoflight on DU (11/22)
Trail of Electronic Voting Uncovered: A Summary of NC Findings by ignatzmouse on DU (11/23)
North Carolina’s ballot blues By JOYCE MCCLOY (11/27)
A Florida Style Nightmare – North Carolina Citizens Demand Verified Voting Measures (11/28)
North Carolina is contender for most fraud & glitches: new documentation from berniew1 (3/04/05) Video: Carteret Citizens whose votes were lost speak out – WillYourVoteBCounted (Wed Jul-27-05)
Bradblog: Diebold certified in NC after all by former Diebold rep! – Amaryllis on DU (Thu Dec-01-05)
Diebolding NC – the timeline,cronies, ties to NC corruption investigation – WillYourVoteBCounted on DU (Sun Dec-04-05)
Red State NC Fights Back against Diebold! Another Lawsuit Filed! – KoKo01 on DU (12-13-05)

Ohio:

OH Vote Suppression: 92,000 optiscan/punchcards didn’t record vote
Ohio voters tell of Election Day troubles at hearing
Slip-sliding away in Columbus
Better Dead Than Red – The story Ken Blackwell didn’t want you to read.
KERRY WON OHIO – JUST COUNT THE BALLOTS AT THE BACK OF THE BUS – Greg Palast
A Legitimate Recount Effort in Ohio
A report on the election from an Attorney that was “on the ground” in Ohio
Errors plague voting process in Ohio, Pa.
Unravelling the Mystery of the Cuyahoga County vote totals
Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes
Ohio Poll Worker on the Rigged Vote
Why Did CNN Change Their Exit Poll Data for Ohio After 1:00 AM?
And so the sorting and discarding of Kerry votes begins
Who Counts in Ohio
The Ohio Code – by Atrios
The Perfect Election Day Crime
GOP Vote Suppression: A Crime Against the U.S. Constitution
Statistical Evidence: Ohio election rigged
Notes from Ohio voter suppression hearing in Columbus 11/15
Some ballots counted twice
Document reveals Columbus, Ohio voters waited hours as election officials held back machines
93,000 Extra Votes In Cuyahoga County -Outrage In Ohio
Possible Proof of fraud in one bit of testimony.
Democrats take up fight over ballots
Vote rigging by machine allocation in Franklin County, Ohio
Sample Right-wing Voter Suppression Letter
Precincts with only 21 votes in Cuyahoga, OH:218,981 less votes ’00 to ’04
Hijinx in Ohio?
Hearings on Ohio voting put 2004 election in doubt
Lawyers to challenge election in Ohio
Blackwell Violates Ohio State Law?
Ohio Presidential Results to be Challenged by Stephen Rosenfeld (11/20)
Hearings on Ohio voting put 2004 election in doubt by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman (11/18)
Ohio counties w Registration exceeding 100% of the voting age by truehawk on DU (11/19)
Election Day rolls include people who couldnâ€™tâ€”and shouldnâ€™tâ€”vote – Columbus Dispatch (10/24)
Ohio hearings show massive GOP vote manipulation by Harvey Wasserman (11/21)
One Ohio County (Cuhayoga) had 55,434 (at minimum) over votes. by jsamuel at DU (11/20)
UPDATE: SOLID Proof of Vote Suppression in OH by markusd at dailyKOS (11/20)
First hand reports by other Ohio volunteers by Ray Beckerman (11/18)
How the Ohio election was rigged for Bush by Bob Fitrakis (11/22)
Recount efforts in Ohio by Kerry intensify by Adam Stone (11/22)
Cuyahoga County Ohio – List of 8k “Incomplete” Registration Cards…by sabra on DU (11/22)
Blackwell sued over Cuyahoga vote tally by James Ewinger (11/27)
More Interesting Ohio Data… please read by TennisGuy2004 on DU (11/23)
8,099 Cuyahoga ballots ruled invalid by Diane Solov (11/23)
New Ohio voter transcripts feed floodtide of doubt about Republican election manipulation (11/25)
More voting questions raised by Jon Craig (11/25)
Widespread Election Fraud in Cleveland? by Bob Fertik (11/19)
CUYAHOGA COUNTY: MASSIVE Punchcard machine outages by Chili on DU (11/28)
Blackwell Denies Public Access to Poll Books in Trumbull County from rehema on DU (11/28)
“Prima Facie” evidence of Ohio election fraud — Pacifica Radio from jamboi on DU (11/28)
Kerry Supports Ohio Vote Investigation, Jackson says by Steven Rosenfeld (11/28)
Re-Vote, Not Recount, in Ohio by Anne Pfeiffer (11/29)
Dec. 4th Ohio Rally!
Ohio tally fit for Ukraine (11/30)
Kerry campaign joins the glib lawsuit in OH!!! from Wordie on DU (11/30)
Kerry loses about 400 votes to 3rd parties in Cleveland? 1 in 10^50 odds from jfern on DU (12/1)
Major vote suppression based on race…And its actionable. from pointoflight on DU (12/1)
MUST SEE! Cliff Arnebeck Link on C-Span re: FRAUD!!! from Verve on DU (12/2)
Conyers and Other Congressman to Hold Forum on Voting Irregularities in Ohio(12/3)
Ohio Voter Turn Out Turned Off!!! from Ronbrynaert on DU (12/3)
WHY HAVEN’T THEY COUNTED A QUARTER MILLION VOTES IN OHIO? Greg Palast (12/5)
Kerry lost 369 votes at one Ohio polling place, 115 at another, hundreds at others on DailyKOS (12/2)
BAD COUNTS CERTIFIED in Cuyahoga County OH from k8conant on DU (12/7)
Graphics of Disenfranchisement, Turnout choked by too few machines – mirror of DU page (12/7)
Ohio election fraud uproar blasting to new level by Steve Rosenfeld, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (12/7)
Video Highlights of Rep. Conyers’ “Ohio Voting Irregularities” Forum .wmv from crooksandliars.com (12/8)
Documentation that Kerry Won Ohio; (the recount will prove it) from berniew1 on DU (12/9)
Why history demands an Ohio revote by Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis (12/10)
Triad machines produce 101,506 more Bush Votes than expected in Ohio from IndyOp on DU (12/10)
More votes than voters in Ohio – absentee votes inflated from BR_Parkway on DU (12/10)
GROUNDS to OVERTURN the election in OHIO from k8conant on DU (12/11)
Disturbing occurance in Warren County, Ohio from yankeefanatic3 on DU (12/12)
Cuts in precincts add to voter lines – Akron Beacon (12/12)
Blackwell Locks Down Ohio Voting Records from shraby on DU (12/12)
Smoking Gun of Election Fraud is in Ken Blackwellâ€™s Hand By Anthony Wade (12/12)
Ohio Recount Affidavit – Richard Hayes Phillips (12/12)
Ohio pre-certification oddities – vanishing votes etc. from harmonyguy on DU (12/12)
A READABLE, CONVINCING summary of Ohio vote fraud analyses from IndyOp on DU (12/12)
Ohio lockdown a case of prima facie election fraud? from pointsoflight on DU (12/12)
Hacking the vote in Lucas County by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. (12/12)
Update from Greene County Ohio – Sworn Affidavit from dzika on DU (12/14)
OHIO sure knows how to count quickly!! from ClarkinMich on DU (12/14)
Blackwell Refuses to Cooperate with House Judiciary Democrats from cyn2 on DU (12/14)
“House Judiciary Ohio Forum Hears of Recount Fraud Plans” –Report from BreakForNews on DU (12/13)
Ohio Electoral College Chooses Bush After Challenge Filed (12/13)
Ohio Vote Fraud Battle Heats Up – Blackwell Is In Deep Trouble! from sabra on DU (12/13)
Here is a specific Ohio law Blackwell violated–I need help getting arrest from Vote4Kerry on DU (12/14)
Here are the Petition and Injuntion in the Arnebeck Case!!! from keithjx on DU (12/14)
Witness says voting company tampered with machines after vote and tried to plant false information into Ohio recount (12/14)
Proof of Ohio Election Fraud Exposed By William Rivers Pitt (12/15)
Rep. Conyers Seeks Federal Inquiry into Ohio Voting – Buzzflash (12/15)
Ohio Justice Throws Out Election Challenge – Associated Press (12/16)
What R the odds of PERFECT RECOUNTS in multiple counties from texpatriot2004 on DU (12/16)
Ohio, Fairfield County, suspends recount…UPDATED WITH REPORT from mtnester on DU (12/16)
Kerry-Edwards letter to Blackwell: Please Analyze the Words.. from Shalom on DU (12/16)
In addition to TRIAD, Diebold hacks the recount. – rawstory (12/16)
Chaos in Cuyahoga? 49,000 Votes Disappear into the Ether …then found? from Iceburg on DU (12/16)
Ohio vote count battles escalate amidst new evidence of potential criminal activity by Bob Fitrakis (12/18)
ES&S Machines in Mahoning County Defaulted to Bush! from emlev (12/22)
Mercer County: Triad Mechanic Permitted to Disassemble Tabulator from Carolab on DU (12/22)
Report from Recount Observer, Lucas County, Ohio from carolab on DU (12/22)
Blackwell crimes in 2004 pres. race already an issue for 2006 gov. race… from EMunster on DU (12/22)
Ohio’s Perfectly Paranormal Recount Results from rainbow4321 on DU (12/22)
Ohio recount- Cuyahoga County ballots pre-sorted from mdb on DU (12/22)
Coshocton Co. Results: Kerry to Gain 40,000+ in Ohio Hand Recount from dzika on DU (12/12)
Arnebeck ALSO Requests Emergency Hearing to Impound Machines…. from EMunster on DU (12/22)
Voters Refile Challenge Of Presidential Results – Associated Press (12/22)
Blackwell’s office had secret slush funds and Perry County lawsuit from WiseFawn on DU (12/22)
Conyers Letter to Triad asking for cheat sheets from Twist_U_Up on DU (12/26)
Cuyahoga Cty – 2000 Bush Tallies Used to Fake 2004 Tallies? from 59sunburst on DU (12/27)
Ohio Official Refuses Interview Over Vote – Associated Press (12/27)
ODDS OF A FAIR VOTE IN COSHOCTON COUNTY, OH: 1 of 17,000 ! from TruthIsAll on DU (12/28)
Ohio Recount -Officialy Over- Ends in Laughable Outcome from BreakForNews on DU (12/28)
OHIO HAS 11,360 PRECINCTS from stella2cat on DU (12/30)
Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies By William Rivers Pitt (12/30)
The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio by Michael Keefer (1/24/05)
A NEW legal challenge in Ohio!!! from ClassWarrior on DU (1/25/05)
Proof of Vote fraud has happened in Ohio before from phantomvotes on DU (1/25/05)
LETTER: Four House Dems ask for Ohio criminal investigation from rawstory on DU (1/14/05)
CONYERS AND OTHERS TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF IN OHIO SUPREME COURT by WilliamPitt (2/15/05)
Ohio recount volunteers allege electoral tampering, legal violations and possible fraud – RawStory (1/26/05)
FBI checking Clermont voting – Congressman claims tampering – By Reid Forgrave (2/09/05)
EIRS case doc. of vote switching, dirty tricks, suppression in Ohio by berniew1 (2/07/05)
S.O.S. in Ohio did not allow recount of 3% sample in DRE TS counties-why? by berniew1 (2/15/05)
Ohio Attorney-General’s attack on election protection attorneys draws mountain of documentation on state’s stolen election (2/03/05)
Green recount volunteers found signif. irregularities inmost Ohio counties by berniew1 (1/29/05)
Ohio has a history of hacking the vote from brindis_desala on DU (3/10/05)
researchers at Nashville conference-strong case Kerry won Ohio – berniew1 (Mon Apr-11-05)
Fired Ohio Election Board staffer defiant over “retribution” – Bob Fitrakis (May 25, 2005)
Attack on election board whistleblower and leaked Blackwell threats re-fire Ohio’s election theft scandal – by Bob Fitrakis (May 23, 2005)
UPDATE: ‘Democratic’ Election Officials’ Feet Held to Fire in Hocking County, OH – BradBlog ( 6/9/2005)
Something Rotten in Ohio By Gore Vidal, The Nation (June 14, 2005)
Everything you ever wanted to know about CoinGate in Ohio (June 22, 2005)
Evidence of Fraud and Disenfranchisement in Ohio, 2004 : A Partial List (June 22, 2005)
Taka a look at what OHIO thinks about Bush and tell me Kerry lost it.. – TruthIsAll (Tue Jun-28-05)
Ohio Democrats victims of break-in – MelissaB (Sat Jul-02-05)
Voter registration data could provide the key to the 2004 Ohio election – Time for change (Tue Jul-12-05)
10,000 Registration Documents Shredded in Hocking County? -NoBushSpokenHere (Thu Jul-14-05)
Too Close for Comfort – Paul Hackett Congressional Race – (August 03, 2005)
GOP Ohio Miracle of the Moment! – BradBlog (8/2/2005)
about those white stickers…… – garybeck (Wed Aug-24-05)
Ohio Governor’s ethics violations expose money trail to stolen 2004 election – by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman (August 30, 2005)
What if NY Times was right about massive Dem. increase in OH voter reg.? – Time for change on DU (Fri Jul-22-05)
NVRI: Federal Judge Sets Expedited Schedule for Lawsuit (Ohio!) – eomer on DU (Sat Sep-17-05)
DNC Report Conclusion of â€œNo Widespread Fraudâ€ in Ohio Election Disputed – Time for change on DU (Tue Sep-27-05)
Eye On Ohio: The Informed Citizen’s Guide to the 2004 Election (11-30-05)
OH: Republican Mole at Toledo Blade Spiked Coingate in Jan 2004 – autorank on DU (Thu Oct-06-05)
Watergate-style money laundering indictments stoke Ohio’s stolen election by kster on DU (Fri Oct-28-05)
Ohio Precinct-level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount sunshinekathy (Wed Nov-02-05)
disconnect between the pre-election polls and the “reported” election results in Ohio on Issue 1 vs. Issues 2-5 – (Wed Nov-09-05)
Update on purging of > 100 K voters from Cuyahoga Co. voter roles – Time for change (Wed Nov-09-05)
State plans to investigate voting chaos; Tuesday’s problems are latest for Lucas County – OH – althecat (Thu Nov-10-05)
Fitrakis & Wasserman discuss Ohio’s referendum electronic “defeats” – AtLiberty on DU (Sat Nov-12-05)
The Staggeringly Impossible Outcome for Ohio’s ’05 Election – lizzieforkerry on DU (Sun Nov-13-05)
The Role of Voter Registration Purging/Fraud in Kerry’s loss of Ohio – Time for change on DU (Wed Nov-09-05)
Coup d’etat Redux in Ohio! – Einsteinia on DU ( Dec-12-05)
OH: New Blackwell Directive: No More RANDOM recounts – mod mom on DU (Dec-16-05)
Brad Blog: Bob Ney of Ohio’s Connection To Electoral Fraud – AtLiberty (Jan-10-06)
The Gun Is Smoking! Election Archive Releases Analysis of OH! – Stevepol (Jan-21-06)
Evidence of Fraud and Disenfranchisement in Ohio, 2004 : A Partial List – Wilms (Jan-19-06)
Grand Theft Election Ohio.com – McCamy Taylor (Jan-21-06)
Study of Provisionals in Cleveland – mod mom (Jan-25-06)
FREE PRESS: OH GOP Poised to Gut Election Protection – mod mom (Feb-07-06)
Revote in Ohio After More Votes Than Voters Recorded on Diebold Machines – Wilms (Feb-07-06)
IMPORTANT: The Effects of PURGES in Franklin Co., Ohio: – mod mom (Feb-18-06)
Hackett has election stolen then betrayed by Party – autorank (Feb-16-06)
Hang On…: Cobb Demands Reinstatement of Ohio Recount Lawsuit – Wilms (Feb-23-06)
We Need Help in Confirming Election Fraud in Cleveland 2004 – Time for change (Feb-25-06)
Cleveland Audit Reveals Vote Count Discrepancy in Bushâ€™s Favorâ€“Need Help! – Time for change (Mar-03-06)
Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio voter registrations put Bush back in the White – kster (Mar-03-06)
The new face of apartheid: J. Kenneth Hackwell – Bob Fitrakis (March 30, 2006)
An Analogous Event to the Warren County “Lockdown” – Colombia 1998 – Time for change (Mar-15-06)

Pennsylvania:

Dirty work at Philly polls
You think democracy is dead in OH? Get a load of PA! – Bill Bored (Jan-26-06)
We lost a Big One in PA today…And I can’t figure out how… – Junkdrawer (Mar-04-06)
Sequoia E-Vote Systems Found ‘Hackable’ in PA, Testing Shut Down After Machine Failures! – BradBlog (3/30/2006)

Texas:

Problems in Texas With E-Slate and Straight-Party Vote from TexasLawyer on DU (11/30)
Kaufman County Election Scandal by Greg Moses (12/27)
Widespread vote machine fraud in Texas-Austin,Houston,SanAntonio from berniew1 on DU (1/15/05)
High court observers see (Texas) redistricting case as pivotal – papau on DU (Dec-14-05)
Brad:New voting machine co. whistleblower speaks out; TX primary afftected – Amaryllis (Mar-13-06)
BREAKING: E-MACHINES FAIL! TX PRIMARY RECOUNT HALTED BY SEC OF STATE! – BradBlog (Mar-22-06)

Utah:

33,000 ballots lost in shuffle – Utah County
Utah Election Auditor discovers Diebold real and potential problems – papau (Mar-19-06)

Vermont:

Vermont Does Hand Counts! Please READ – interesting! – by TennisGuy2004 on DU (11/21)

Virginia:

Trouble with voting Machines in Virginia – M_Demo_M on DU (Tue Nov-08-05)

Washington:

Republicans file suit to limit King County recount Seattle Post-Intelligencer (11/21)
“Serious problems in King County Elections Department” – (11/23)
Snohomish county, Washington – evidence of systematic machine fraud from tex-wyo-dem on DU (1/20/05)
USCountVotes: Evidence of Election Irregularities in Snohomish County, WA – eomer (Fri Apr-15-05)
GOP challenges rights of hundreds of voters (WA) – cal04 on DU ( Sat Nov-05-05)

Wisconsin

Error nets Bush 100 extra votes – By GREG J. BOROWSKI (June 7, 2005)
Wisconsin Approves the Vote-PAD Assistive Device – kster (Feb-18-06)

Wyoming:

There are even major irregularities in Wyoming! by pointsoflight on DU (11/25)

Comments Off on 2004 Election Theft.com: State by State · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

2004 Election Theft.com: Exit Polls & Projections

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, Exit Polls, General on January 28th, 2006

The Election Model – by TruthIsAll (probably what REALLY happened on Nov.2nd)
Electoral College Meta-Analysis (election.princeton.edu) (very, very good!)
Again History Is Made On DU – EXIT POLL THEORY Bounces Back
A Must Read ** Breakthrough ** â€“ EXIT POLL ANALYSIS FOR 47 STATES
GOP Wants to End Exit Polls – Gee, I wonder why?
“… exit polls were adjusted to reflect official vote tallies.”?
Exit Polls Right, Tallies Wrong?
Exit Polls vs. Reported Results
Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam – by Michael Keefer
Cal Tech exit polls (corrupted) & Freeman-U of Pa exit polls (uncorrupted)
Complete US Exit Poll Data Confirms Net Suspicions:Full 51 State Early Exit Poll Data
THIS IS THE TRUE FRAUD-FREE ELECTION RESULT
Exit Polls MATCHED Pre-Election polls within 1/7th of ONE percent
8.1 million Gore voters didn’t bother voting this month
News Groups Will Delay Future Exit Polls (…to buy more time to alter them?)
US Election: Democracy in Question – John Zogby, Ralph Nader
National Election Pool is a secret consortium with intelligence ties
Mirror of Zogby’s 5pm Election Day Prediction submitted by Jesse Stewart (11/21)
New analysis of Ohio exit polls. – TennisGuy2004 on DU (11/22)
Errors in exit polls still a puzzle to many John Allen Paulos (11/24)
Bush-Cheney Campaign Headquarters: What They Don’t Want You To Know by Wayne Madsen (7/27/04)
Pre-election State Polls vs. Exit Polls vs. Actuals: ONE Graph. Look Close by TruthIsAll (11/24)
ONE OUT OF 4.5 BILLION! by TruthIsAll (11/25)
How could exit polls have been so wrong? by Eric Fried (11/26)
An Ongoing E-mail Arguement with Mitofsky by truehawk on DU (11/26)
The exit polls WERE adjusted to the election results from John Helge on DU (11/28)
Final Tallies Minus Exit Polls = A Statistical Mystery! by John Allen Paulos (11/24)
15 QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO WOULD DISPARAGE EXIT POLLING. by TruthIsAll on DU (11/28)
Why is it that exit polls since 1988 have ALL overstated the Dem vote? from TruthIsAll on DU (12/5) Analysis Reveals Dramatic Evidence of Election Tampering By Webb Mealy, PhD (12/5)
THE PROBABILITY IS ZERO from TruthIsAll (12/5)
Pre-election advice on Exit Polls from Edison Media !!! from k8conant on DU (12/5)
Electoral-vote.com’s map based on exit polls from latteromden on DU (12/7)
Edison – Mitofsky Exit Polls Method Statment and the questionnaire (.pdf) used from sabra on DU (12/8)
Zogby Polling Seeks Damage Control After Election Day Flub from sabra on DU (12/9)
Zogby Defense: ‘My Polling Was Very, Very Good’ from blitzburgh55 on DU (12/12)
WTF!? Exit Polls Were Correct for Other Races from BlueDog2u on DU (12/12)
Eliminating Exit Polls … a new strategy? from sunnystarr on DU (12/12)
Kerry: Exit polls (50.6%/311EV) MATCHED pre-election polls (50.52%/322EV) from TruthIsAll on DU (12/12)
IT’S GRAPHIC: KERRY VOTE TALLIES VS. EXIT POLLS from TruthIsAll on DU (12/14)
SMOKING GUN? 2000 EXIT POLLS ACCURATE TO WITHIN 0.17%. STRAWMAN DOWN! from TruthIsAll on DU (12/24)
TV Networks Officially Refuse to Release Exit Poll Raw Data by Gary Beckwith (12/24)
THE SMOKING GRAPH: GORE (tight) VS. KERRY (wide) EXIT POLL DEVIATIONS from TruthIsAll on DU (12/24)
THE NATIONAL VOTE/EXIT POLL TIMELINE AND THE OHIO/FLORIDA EXIT POLL DISCREPANCIES. from TruthIsAll on DU (12/26)
CONFIRMING DR. BAIMAN: THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL SAMPLE PROBABILITIES from TruthIsAll on DU (12/26)
ExitPollz.org (12/30)
SMOKING GUN? THE CNN NATIONAL EXIT POLL SITE PROVES THAT KERRY WON! from TruthIsAll on DU (12/30)
Mitofsky 4 Zone Data (individual .pdfs)
Mitofsky 4 Zone Data (all .pdfs zipped)
National Election Poll: Analysis of Voter Demographics from TruthIsAll on DU (1/25/05)
Freeman disputes critique of his analysis of exit poll discrepancy from Amaryllis on DU (1/25/05)
Coincidence?100% paper-ballot OR is MOST accurate (within 0.40%) Exit Poll from TruthIsAll on DU (1/24/05)
GRAPH: Exit Poll Deviations Weighted by State Voting Method Mix from TruthIsAl on DU (1/20/05)
Mitofsky on Nightline:”26 of 30 deviations to Bush” Wrong. It was 30 of 30 from TruthIsAll onDU (1/25/05)
Exit pollsters to release election report to media (but not to public) from dzika on DU (1/20/05)
THREE PROBABILITIES from TruthIsAll on DU (1/25/05)
THE 2000 STATE EXIT POLLS WERE ALMOST PERFECT from TruthIsAll on DU (1/25/05)
I HAVE JUST UPDATED THE EXIT POLL ANALYSIS: THE RESULTS ARE ASTOUNDING. from TruthIsAll on DU (1/15/05)
Bush’s win was a historical anomaly– is this evidence of fraud? from spooked911 on DU (1/25/05)
1/23 UPDATE: NATIONAL EXIT POLL DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS from TruthIsAll on DU (1/23/05)
Mitofsky’s background and an outrageous endorsement! from RaulVB on DU (1/26/05)
Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls were right By Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf (2/15/05)
BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS: MITOFSKY’S “RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER” THEORY by TruthIsAll (2/12/05)
THE MOST DEVASTATING STATISTIC OF ALL: 17% OF THE VOTERS WERE NEW by TruthIsAll (2/10/05) Response to Tokaji Critique of USCV Edison/Mitofsky Exit Poll Discrepancies – uscountvotes.org (2/04/05)
Naysayers, its time to take your strawmen elsewhere. 9 phd’s call for election investigation! (2/15/05)
THE BARE TRUTH WHICH SHOULD HAVE FLIPPED OUT THE DEMOCRATS BY NOW. – TruthIsAll (1/29/05)
ULTIMATE PROOF KERRY WON: COMPARE THE NATIONAL EXIT POLLS -1996,2000,2004 from TruthIsAll on DU (2/20/05)
FASTEN SEAT BELTS. THIS IS THE CLINCHER. from TruthIsAll on DU (03/28/05)
THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO: KERRY WON BY 7 MILLION VOTES from TruthIsAll on DU (3/28/05)
Exit Poll Deviations vs. Governor’s Party and Straight Party Voting Option from Bill Bored on DU (3/22/05)
100% ABSOLUTE PROOF: FINAL NEP OVERSTATED BUSH VOTE BY AT LEAST 2 MIL. from TruthIsAll on DU (03/21/05)
A TIA MEA CULPA: THE “SIMPLE” NEP EXPLANATION IS WRONG… from TruthIsAll on DU (2/30/05)
The Exit Polls were heavily biased against Kerry- here’s why. from BernieW1 on DU (3/09/05)
UPDATED: MY COLLECTION OF EXIT POLL THREADS from TruthIsAll (3/13/05)
IF THIS PRELIMINARY NEP WEIGHT WAS CORRECT, WHY WAS IT CHANGED? from TruthIsAll (3/13/05) A Mathematical proof: Exit polls are accurate from TruthIsAll (3/10/05)
The Nat Exit Poll Crime Line: 7:58pm(K) to 12:22am (K) to 2:04pm (B) from TruthIsAll (3/10/05)
Kerry won Nat. Exit Poll (11027 respondents) posted on CNN @ 7:58PM from TruthIsAll (3/06/05)
Exit Poll Electoral Map – is this right? from garybeck (2/23/05)
NATIONAL EXIT POLL: PRELIMINARY TO FINAL – WHAT HAPPENED? from TruthIsAll (2/26/05)
2002 Senate Election Fraud Probability Analysis: re-written for clarity from TruthIsAll (Sat Jul-26-03)
THE 13047 NATIONAL EXIT POLL CONFIRMS THE STATE EXIT POLLS (WITHIN .06%) ! – TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-24-05)
Truth: 0 to 13,047; Fiction: 13,048 – 13,660 – TruthIsAll (Tue Apr-19-05)
U.S. General Election Poll-7:37pm,11/02/04: “Estimates NOT for on-air use” – TruthIsAll (Mon Apr-18-05)
Bush Exit Poll Job Approval: A smoking gun? – TruthIsAll (Mon Apr-18-05)
This Jan 3 post on the IMPOSSIBLE Bush 43%/37% NEP weight is NOT from me! – TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-17-05)
National Exit Poll Analysis: Using FACTUAL Historic Data – TruthIsAll (Mon Apr-11-05)
ELECTION 2004: THE COMPLETE GRAPHICAL REFERENCE – TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-03-05)
Collective Bellaciao, France: Science proves that vote fraud is real! – MelissaB (Sun Apr-03-05)
From Selection 2000 to 2004 (NEP): Voted, Died, Reborn, Did Not Vote – TruthIsAll (Fri Apr-01-05)
The Nat Exit Poll Crime Line: 7:58pm(K) to 12:22am (K) to 2:04pm (B) – TruthIsAll (Mon Mar-07-05)
Kerry won Nat. Exit Poll (11027 respondents) posted on CNN @ 7:58PM – TruthIsAll (Sun Mar-06-05)
The Oregon Smoking Gun – TruthIsAll (Fri Mar-04-05)
HOW KERRY WON OHIO BY 51-48%… – TruthIsAll (Fri Apr-29-05)
A PUZZLE FOR DUERS: THE NATIONAL VS. STATE GENDER DEMOGRAPHIC MATCH-UP – TruthIsAll (Sat Apr-30-05)
Kathy Dopp’s Most Recent Post Concerning Lizzie Liddel’s Criticism of USCV – davidgmills (Sun May-01-05)
The Reluctant Gore Responder (RGR) -TruthIsAll (Sun May-01-05)
THESE NUMBERS TELL THE WHOLE STORY – TruthIsAll (Fri May-06-05)
1988-2000 Exit Poll Deviation trend was moving to ZERO – until 2004 – TruthIsAll (Thu May-05-05)
LET’S MOE DOWN THE LAST FEW NAYSAYERS ONCE AND FOR ALL – TruthIsAll (Wed May-04-05)
IS rBr STILL BREATHING? THE REQUIRED BUSH % OF REFUSERS IS IMPOSSIBLE! TruthIsAll Sat (May-21-05)
Mitofsky invented reluctant Bush responder scam for Bush Sr. in ’92! tommcintyre (Sat May-21-05)
STATE / NATIONAL EXIT POLL ANALYSIS BY REGION by TruthIsAll (Sun Apr-24-05)
I can’t believe this sh*t from Mitofsky…again. by MelissaB (Sat May-14-05)
NON-RESPONSE BIAS? HERE’S WHY IT HURT KERRY MORE THAN BUSH.. by TruthIsAll (Sat May-14-05)
PROBABILITY ANALYSIS PROVES: THE RBR HYPOTHESIS IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE! by TruthIsAll (Sat May-14-05)
RBR and Rove by Carolab (Tue May-10-05)
BYE, BYE rBr: IMPLAUSIBLE VOTER TURNOUT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS by TruthIsAll (Mon May-09-05)
IT COMES DOWN TO THIS: WHERE DID BUSH FIND 13 MILLION NEW VOTES? KISS… by TruthIsAll (Tue May-10-05)
Even assuming rBr, it takes a MIRACLE to reverse Kerry’s 51-48% margin by TruthIsAll (Sat May-07-05)
Yes, the Reluctant Republican Responder (3%) was a KERRY voter! by TruthIsAll (Fri May-06-05)
The UK and Ukraine have very accurate exit polls…interesting. (Fri May-06-05)
Reluctant Republican Respondents….who voted for Kerry by davidgmills (Fri May-06-05)
A non-statistician’s view of the E-M exit poll controversy – Time for change (Sun May-22-05)
CNN changed their Exit poll numbers – chrisclub (Thu Jun-02-05)
EXIT POLL QUESTION: Party IDs vs. MOEs – Bill Bored (Fri Jun-17-05)
15% OF GORE VOTERS (7.65 MM) SUFFERED FROM ALZHEIMER’S IN 2004 – TruthIsAll (Mon Jun-27-05)
ELECTION 2004 BY THE NUMBERS – TruthIsAll (Tue Jun-28-05)
Ohio Exit Poll Raw Data – minvis (Fri Feb-18-05)
It’s a shutout: FRAUD 3 , rBr 0 – TruthIsAll (Tue Jul-05-05)
Exit poll vs. current Bush Approval – chrisclub (Wed Jul-06-05)
EXIT POLL RESPONSE OPTIMIZER: KEY RESULTS – TruthIsAll (Sat Jul-09-05)
EXIT POLL ANALYSIS THREADS – 7/12/05 UPDATE -TruthIsAll
EXIT POLL ANALYSIS â€“ ESSENTIAL DU THREADS – TruthIsAll (Thu Jul-14-05)
Here’s where the “hypothesis” is refuted again… – LightningFlash (Sat Jul-02-05)
To believe Bush won, you must believe this. – TruthIsAll (Sun Jun-26-05)
Bushco stopped stealing votes after they had it in the bag. – TruthIsAll (Sat Jul-30-05)
Exit Polls show Shrub not winning 1994 Gov race.. Any DU Scoop? – Melissa G (Mon Aug-08-05)
RETURN OF THE CLINCHER: Kerry wins 120 of 120 scenarios – TruthIsAll (Tue Jun-21-05)
To Believe that Bush won….. – TruthIsAll (Fri May-13-05)
Dear Dr. Dean: – TruthIsAll (Wed Jun-29-05)
Freeman vs Mitofsky debate! – Melissa G on DU (Mon Sep-26-05)
Time Line of Exit Poll Irregularities Election 2004: Dopp and Freeman – Stevepol on DU (Sat Oct-22-05)
Steve Freeman Summary of Debate – Melissa G on DU (Thu Oct-20-05)
New Math PROOF that ESI/Mitofsky Logic is Invalid (Not Correct) – sunshinekathy on DU (Sat Oct-29-05)
1.1 for Elections. TIA, Even “Plainer” English. Law of Large Numbers,etc – autorank on DU (Dec-17-05)
Exit polls 2004 discrepancies made quick & EASY for the math impaired ! – Amaryllis (Mar-08-06)

Comments Off on 2004 Election Theft.com: Exit Polls & Projections · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

2004 Election Theft.com: General

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, General on January 28th, 2006

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.

Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. ”

– Margaret Mead – US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 – 1978)

READ THIS FIRST

Election Fraud Beginner’s Guide
What’s Wrong with the News?
Learn How the Broadcast News Media Deceives You!
The 14 Characteristics of Fascism – flash video
AmericanFascism.com
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
Media manipulation – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 ELECTION THEFT: GENERAL LINKS

KERRY PREPARING GROUNDS TO UNCONCEDE, AS TRIAD VOTE CRIMES DETAILED from BreakForNews onDU(12/24)
KERRY PREPARING GROUNDS TO UNCONCEDE (Thread 2) from shraby on DU (12/26)
Kerry Files Motion to Protect Ohio Vote Evidence By William Rivers Pitt (12/27)
Ohio GOP election officials ducking subpoenas as Kerry enters stolen vote fray by Bob Fitrakis (12/28)
Background on New Action by Kerry/Edwards in Federal Court (12/27)
Documentation that Kerry Won Ohio; (the recount will prove it) from berniew1 on DU (12/9)
Proof of Ohio Election Fraud Exposed By William Rivers Pitt (12/15)
Was the 2004 Election Stolen? By Joel Bleifuss (12/10)
Saudis, Enron money helped pay for US rigged election By Wayne Madsen (11/25)
More on the buying of electoral fraud by the Bush campaign by Wayne Madsen (11/26)
Votergate: More details emerge By Wayne Madsen (11/30)
Texas to Florida: White House-linked clandestine operation paid for “vote switching” software By Wayne Madsen
EXPOSÃ‰: THE â€œCHRISTIANâ€ MAFIA By Wayne Madsen (2/12/05)
ALERT: Madsen story strong/incomplete, WE HAVE AFFIDAVIT from rawstory on DU (12/6)
WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT: Programmer Built Vote Rigging Prototype at Republican Congressman’s Request! (12/6)
In interview, programmer details what led him to file vote-rigging affidavit from bluelemur (12/7)
Wayne Madsen sent me an email about his fraud article..here’s what he says (11/28)
Q&A w/ Wayne Madsen on Vote Rigging here on DU! (11/28)
OF 89 NATIONWIDE RANDOM MACHINE GLICHES, 84 KERRY VOTES CAME UP BUSH! from TruthIsAll on DU (12/8)
Jeff Fisher / Madsen / CybernetGroup / FBI (tin foil hat time? you decide! 11/27)
Voting errors tallied nationwide – Boston Globe (12/1)
Grand Theft Election by Wayne Madsen (11/05)
20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA by Angry Girl (12/3)
The Ever Bolder Republican Plan To Keep Black Ballots Out of the Count (12/3)
Another Election Held and Another Election Stolen – justaflyonthewall (12/3)
Voters to challenge US election – Julian Borger in Washington, The Guardian (12/1)
VOTE FRAUD FOLK, READ THIS NOW: HEARINGS! (12/3)
Does not compute by Alan Waldman : Watchdogs want to know: Did every vote count? (12/5)
BREAKING NEWS: Glibs to Recount NM and NV!! (11/29)
Video of a drunken repub at the White House admitting to voting fraud from Melodybe on DU (11/29)
The real FRAUD was voter SUPRESSION! from JohnnyCougar on DU (11/30)
Former Bush campaign official indicted for phone-jamming (12/1)
The Stealing of An Election and Actionable Fraud (12/1)
RNC Whistleblower? (12/2)
The New American Democracy By Ronnie Dugger from Alliance for Democracy (12/2)
How Democrats Enabled Republicans To Steal the 2004 Presidential Election By J. F. Miglio (12/2)
Kiev? What about Cleveland? By Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.
“You Stole My Vote” 51 Capital March SUNDAY, DECEMBER 12TH 2004 at Noon Everywhere!
Top 14 “machine error” states all had red shift (pro-Bush surprise) by whowantstobeoccupied on du (11/26)
What Were the Odds That Bush Would Win? by Alan Waldman (11/25)
election Fraud summary and actions by sweetroxie on DU (11/28)
Did Dubbya rig the election? by Michael Meacher (11/29)
A Beginnerâ€™s Guide to the 2004 Vote Fraud (11/25)
Why We Must Not “Get Over It” on DU (12/2)
THE 2004 ELECTION COLLECTION by TruthIsAll on DU (11/25) EXCELLENT!
The BEST of the DU Analyses from IndyOp on DU (12/1)
A statistical analysis of voting results in three battleground states hit us like a wicked shot of moonshine (11/25)
44 Percent of Hispanics Voted for Bush? By Ruy Teixeira (11/24)
CANNONFIRE Observations on politics and society by Joseph Cannon (11/27)
Gallup Poll: Mandate? WHAT mandate? posted by carolab on DU (11/30)
2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Excellent!)
Another Rigged Election? The Elephant in the Voting Booth – by Maureen Farrell
Voting irregularities index “winners”: AZ, GA, LA, OH, PA, NM, FL, DC, CO by whowantstobeoccupied on du (11/26)
Stolen Election. America Hijacked. – by Chuck Muziani
To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe… – by TruthIsAll
Part II: To believe Bush won the election, you must also believe… – by TruthIsAll
PART III: To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe: – by TruthIsAll
Part IV. To believe Bush won the election, you must also believeâ€¦– by TruthIsAll (3/28/05)
We are being asked to believe the unbelievable…a B* win by texpatriot2004 on DU (11/30)
Bush won in 2000 and 2004 by preventing blacks from voting. by Eric J in MN on DU (11/28)
Math, not conspiracy theory – election results that defied all odds, how do you explain that?
Stolen Election – Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 8th)
“First of all, this election was definitely rigged” -Mark Crispin Miller
Letâ€™s Get Real – Mark Crispin Miller
Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked – by Thom Hartmann (MUST READ!!!!)
How To Take Back A Stolen Election by Thom Hartmann (11/30)
The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy – by Thom Hartmann
123 allegations of voter fraud from around the nation – vote2004.eriposte.com
WATCH THIS SPECIAL ELECTION FILM NOW! – votergate.tv
2004 COLLECTED VOTE FRAUD STORIES – WhatReallyHappened.com
Over 31,000 incidents of voter fraud reported – Election Incident Reporting System
‘Lowdown tricks’ sap poll-watcher’s faith in fair U.S. voting (11/23)
Ballot and Voting Issues Arising in Battleground States -Lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings (11/20)
2000 FL: Double-punched/butterfly; 2002 GA: Diebold; 2004 FL: Optiscam by TruthIsAll on DU (11/20)
How the Grinch stole the White House . . . again By Alan Waldman (11/20)
“It’s all over but the counting — and we’ll take care of the counting.” – Buzzflash (11/21)
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots (No. 178) on Democratic Underground – read #5 & #10 (11/21)
This is what I believe… by TruthIsAll on DU (27 VERY important links – 11/18)
ELECTION FRAUD 2002 – Will we ever learn? on WhatReallyHappened.com (11/21)
Fascism Anyone? – Laurence W. Britt
Did Bush Lose the Election?by Margie Burns, Baltimore Chronicle (11/22)
Litigating the Election By Marjorie Cohn (11/22)
Just released: GAO to investigate voting irregularities by pointoflight on DU (11/23)
14 House Dems Demand GAO Election Probe by Matthew Cardinale (11/24)
Worst Voter Error Is Apathy Toward Irregularities – by Donna Britt, Washington Post
THIS IS BIG: House members ready to contest election if 1 Sen will join in by genius on DU (11/23)
Bush’s ‘Incredible’ Vote Tallies – by Sam Parry, Consortiumnews.com
ReDefeat Bush – Excellent site!
Evidence of Electoral Fraud in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election: A Reading List – by Michael Keefer
Rule by Theft “ElectionGate”- Reconstructing the Crime – by The Black Commentator
Shades of Jim Crow: Election Intimidation 2004 – Revolutionary Worker (rwor.org)
AN EXCELLENT FRAUD SUMMARY! – from http://www.bopnews.com
VOTESCAM!
Votergate 2004? Research Studies Uncover Potential Massive Election Fraud.
The League of Women Voters is deeply concerned about voting irregularities in the 2004 election.
That curious Bush family election night video.
Election result analysis for Florida, Pennsylvania, and Nevada
Did lawyer-observers on Election Day miss fraud incidents?
American Coup II
WE DO NOT CONCEDE COALITION
[UPDATE] This Election is Not Over — Kerry could win WITHOUT proving fraud.
Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project: Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop
Mathematical proof that TV network polling results are FRADULENT
What is a fraud audit? . ‘We Have Truth’..Update from BlackBox site
Help Is On The Way -Implications Of A Stolen Election by Eli Beckerman
MoveOn.org – Investigate the Vote
Robbed 2004 – Stolen Election
INDEPENDENT mathematicians,statisticians et al: Critique the probabilities
Voting Irregularity List – votersunite.org
Bush Campaign Accused of Suppressing Black Vote
George Bush’s 8 Million New Votes Found â€“ A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Steal votes. Discredit exit polls. Eliminate exit polls. Steal more votes.
Theft of the Presidency
Going Down the Stolen Election Road?
The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today
Counted Out – disenfranchising minority voters in swing states
Millions Blocked from Voting in U.S. Election
Bullies at the Voting Booth
We Know it was Stolen…
Hey Right Wingers, This Ain’t 2000 Anymore
Do We Still Have a Democracy?
Voting Files Manually Edited – Finding Proof
Votergate 2004; We Don’t Need Paper to Prove Fraud, But We Do Need Money and Leadership, NOW.
The Republican Party will never lose another election.
Voting in the USA: A Tale of Two Brothers
Worse Than 2000?
Four unspinnable crucial questions on voter fraud.
Kerry Won – Greg Palast
Election 2004: “Sour Grapes” or Voter Fraud
FIXED: The Stealing of Another Election
What Mandate?
Election 2004: Lingering Suspicions
The Perfect Storm? from Patsy Stone on DU (12/5)
Request for the fraud deniers that visit the DU forum from RaulVB (12/5)
Greg Palast Investigation called in gets widespread on DailyKOS (12/5)
KERRY VOTE DEVIATIONS ACROSS TIME ZONES from TruthIsAll on DU (12/12)
Was The 2004 Election Legitimate? – Democracy Now! (12/10)
Bush’s popular vote margin now barely 3 million from NewYorkerfromMass on DU (12/12)
Washington Post actually shows how fraud took place from RaulVB on DU (12/10)
View this graph: The weighted state national polling trend was to Kerry. from TruthIsAll on DU (12/12)
View this graph: Kerry probabilties were rising in the battleground states from TruthIsAll on DU (12/12)
View this graph. And remember: undecided ALWAYS break FOR the challenger. from TruthIsAll on DU (12/12)
View this graph. And remember, incumbents wih 48.5% approval always LOSE from TruthIsAll on DU (12/12)
Evidence Dramatically Raises Suspicion of Election Tampering from proudtobeadem on DU (12/12)
Area activists demand FBI probe – Lowey supports investigation of Election Day fraud by Adam Stone (12/12)
smoking gun on Blackwell, Bush, and diebold from AnIndependentTexan on DU (12/12)
Election fraud or just suspicions? by Theodore D. Graves (12/12)
Sham election has united liberals (12/14)
Theft of the Election, Redux. – Buzzflash (12/15)
Documented vote machine fraud in swing states explains vote “swing” by berniew1 (12/22)
Ohio electoral fight becomes ‘biggest deal since Selma’ as GOP stonewalls by Bob Fitrakis (12/22)
Responses for people who insist on ignoring Election Fraud from dzika (12/22)
Conyers says more than one Senator will join to contest election on Jan. 6 from Faye on DU (12/22)
A Mainstream Media Voice & an ES&S Whistleblower from George W. Hayduke on DU (12/22)
Certifiable election results by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. (12/19)
PUNCHES, TOUCHSCREAMS,OPTISCAMS: Exit Poll Deviations vs. Machine Problems from TruthIsAll on DU (12/22)
Electors across US break traditional pro forma ritual to use electoral college to protest election (12/18)
Kerry to Enter Ohio Recount Fray By William Rivers Pitt (12/23)
Lawsuit summary: Ohio from kevin_pdamerica on DU (12/24)
For Any Vote Fraud Doubter by Jack Dresser, Ph.D. (12/24)
No Holiday for Vote Thieves by The Black Commentator (12/23)
WHY REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THERE WAS NO FRAUD: From A to Z from TruthIsAll on DU (12/26)
Internet Vote Fraud: Means, Motive, and Opportunity – Bellaciao (12/28)
Documentation: widespread vote machine fraud and dirty tricks in 20 states from berniew1 on DU (1/24/05)
WATCH NOW – Election Fraud 2004 Compilation Video by DU Members from Faye on DU (1/25/05)
Arkansas in 2004: Did Bush Really Win? by Max Standridge (1/24/05)
THE BIG PICTURE – ARE THESE THE ACTIONS OF HONEST MEN AND WOMEN? from Laura PackYourBags on DU (1/25/05)
OAF OF OFFICE by Greg Palast (1/20/05)
â€˜The Battle goes onâ€™: An exclusive interview with Congressman Conyers and Raw Story (1/20/05)
Congressman Conyers 102-page report from Judiciary Committee Democrats from pennyman on DU (1/25/05)
??? How in the Hell can this be attributed to people wanting * for prez from KaliTracy on DU (1/25/05)
Nobel Peace Prize nominee: Bush re-election may end the human race from NAO on DU (1/25/05)
Why We Must Question Our Elections By Arlene S. Ash, Ph.D. (1/17/05)
RED SHIFT: 2.5 million votes lost by Kerry from TruthIsAll on DU (1/25/05)
Small vote manipulations can swing elections by Anthony Di Franco, Andrew Petro, Emmett Shear, Vladimir Vladimirov (1/20/05)
Kerry Criticized election Outcome at MLK breakfast!! from meganmonkey on DU (1/17/05)
* (bush) is officially, “legally”, beyond the law from nmoliver on DU (1/16/05)
Faking Democracy: Americans Don’t Vote, Machines Do, & Ballot Printers Can’t Fix That by Lynn Landes (4/06/04)
“*” “victory” impossible. Contradicts US historic voting patterns (1/25/05)
Greg Palast & Jesse Jackson: JIM CROW RETURNS TO THE VOTING BOOTH (1/25/05)
Eye on Ohio: The Informed Citizen’s Guide to the 2004 Election (1/28/05)
CONYERS INTRODUCES LEGISLATION: VOTE RIGHTS ACT 2005 by Wilms (2/02/05)
CONYERS, OTHERS: REQUEST CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE INVESTIGATION by Wilms (2/03/05)
Exit Polls Made Easy – Something’s fishy, and it ain’t just Ohio by Gary Beckwith (1/31/05)
Rethinking Recounts by NVMojo on DU (2/15/05)
Quick summary of 2004 Election Fraud! from PeacePatriot on DU (2/20/05)
Interview details YEARS of election fraud, media & Mitofsky complicity from Amaryllis on DU (2/19/05)
Gannon scoop shows White House Forged TANG/CBS memos?!?! from Chicago1 on DU (2/20/05)
Amazing video: Fitrakis at election fraud teach in (Santa Monica) – Liberty Belle on DU (3/28/05)
Democratic National Committee Announces Ohio Election Review Team from madfloridian on DU (03/04/05)
Rigged Aggregator Codes revealed: how the election was stolen from chomskysright on DU (3/19/05)
Did you know? Hispanics “overlooked” in Florida’s felon scrubbing program. from Carola on DU (3/19/05)
ChoicePoint saga continues… from GettysBergII on DU (03/06/05)
Cobb+Badnarik+Kerry/Edwards add TAMPERING to the Civil Suit from IceBerg on DU (3/18/05)
A Succinct Summary of the 2004 Presidential Election from kevin_pdamerica (3/14/05)
Republicans continue efforts to make it harder for students to vote from berniew1 on DU (3/12/05)
LexisNexis, (owner of Seisint and MATRIX) has database hacked into from GettysbergII (3/10/05)
Jesse Jackson: Republicans maneuvering to get Voting Rights Act killed from Wilms (3/08/05)
The sun revolves around the Earth and George W. Bush won the election in Ohio by Bob Fitrakis, freepress.org (3/08/05)
Psychics predict election fraud scandal from garybeck (3/05/05)
Teresa Heinz Kerry “openly skeptical about results from November election” from Land Shark (3/07/05)
Voting glitches haunt statistician from buddysmellgood (3/04/05)
Voting a straight party ticket DOES NOT include a vote for president in: from berniew1 (03/04/05)
Solar Bus Election Legislation Reference
20 Amazing Facts about Voting in the USA from mod mom (3/01/05)
College vote suppressed by Repubs all over U.S.- why didn’t Media cover? from berniew1 (2/28/05)
BREAKING: Kerry/Edwards File More Ohio Election Motions from William Pitt (2/24/05)
“My Election 2004 bad dream” – By JOSH MITTELDORF (Tue Apr-26-05)
Kerry still working on stolen election. If this is true, it’s good news. – Amaryllis (Thu Apr-21-05)
14 house, senate races won by computer fraud in 2002, and more… -Amaryllis (Wed Apr-20-05)
Clint Curtis passes polygraph exam – garybeck (Wed Apr-13-05)
Silence of the Scams: Psychological Resistance to Facing Election Fraud – Fly by night (Fri Apr-15-05)
Let’s assume Congress and President were not elected. Now what. – SophieZ (Wed Apr-13-05)
Huge disapproval of Bush & his policies points to election fraud – Peace Patriot (Sat Apr-09-05)
What is our best evidence/indicators of HOW it was stolen? – tommcintyre (Mon Apr-25-05)
How Blackwell and Petro Saved Bushâ€™s Brain: And the rise of the right wing juggernaut in Ohio – Bob Fitrakis (April 27, 2005)
Why people don’t know about the stolen election – 17 techniques – helderheid (Mon May-02-05)
Gutless DNC. No “smoking gun”? Nothing to investigate? – Filius Nullius (Tue May-03-05)
The ACTUAL reason why no one knows this election was stolen. – libertypirate (Tue May-03-05)
Rove says win due to GOPs “largely INVISIBLE grass-roots effort” in Ohio – dzika (Wed May-04-05)
National Election Reform Conference Inspires Attendees – by Vickie Karp
The Biggest Story of Our Lives – Jim Lampley (05.10.2005)
Revisiting the Biggest Story of Our Lives – Jim Lampley (05.25.2005)
Tom Ridge admits color coded alerts were manipulated, a study and a graph. (5/22/05)
Ohio 2004 : Ignoring the Canary by Rep. John Conyers (5/12/05)
GOP “Voter Fraud” Talking Points – demodonkey (Thu May-19-05)
“Coingate”/Lucas County BOE Investigation connection: smoking gun? by mod mom (Thu May-12-05)
Gutless DNC. No “smoking gun”? Nothing to investigate? by Filius Nullius (Tue May-03-05)
Our Evidence vs. Their Evidence by TruthIsAll (Sat May-07-05)
Exposing the Myths: One by One by TruthIsAll (Sat May-21-05)
WAKE the F*CK UP: **Stop Election Fraud** – Bellaciao (Wednesday 25th May 2005)
Remember Why We Really Lost In â€™04? – By Allen Snyder ( May 30, 2005)
Conyers’ Blog: Let’s Not Forget Ohio – Wilms (Tue May-31-05)
John Edwards: “I gotta get this off my chest. – MelissaB (Thu Jun-02-05)
A way to frame the issue. – garybeck (Tue Jun-07-05)
OH Dem says BWC scandal ilegalities put PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN QUESTION! – (Thursday, June 9, 2005)
Introduction: Did George W. Bush steal America’s 2004 election? by Bob Fitrakis(June 16, 2005)
Why the Democrats Will Keep Losing By Steven Hill, Mother Jones (June 10, 2005)
America’s Ministry of Propaganda Exposed By Gar Smith / The-Edge (November 7, 2003)
Voter Confidence Resolution – EXCELLENT! (Saturday, April 23, 2005)
DNC announces National Lawyers Council for election reform by Carolab (Sat Jun-11-05)
How the Bush Crime Syndicate Funneled Foreign Cash Into the U.S. Political System by Wayne Madsen (Sat Jun-11-05)
The Coverup that Cost the Election: Ohio GOP knew of huge loss in October (Sat Jun-11-05)
Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio – DNC (June 22, 2005) Full Report (.pdf)
What the DNC Ohio Election Report failed to address: My letter to H. Dean by Time for change (Sun Jun-26-05)
John Gideon: Corporate Control of the Election Process – FreePress.org (Wed Jun-22-05)
Conversation with Bob Fitrakis, Author of “Did George W. Bush Steal America’s 2004 Election” – (Sun Jun-19-05)
The Theft of Your Vote is Merely a Microchip Away – By Thom Hartmann, Berkeley Daily Planet ((8/1/2003)
“Phony GOP ‘Voting Rights’ Group ACVR Continues Attempts at Defrauding American Voters” – BradBlog (6/22/2005)
15 Things Learned About Bush&Co.: An Impeachment List – By Bernard Weiner ( June 28, 2005)
With a limp election theft report, Dems prove why they’re unworthy – by Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis (June 28, 2005)
The DNC 2004 Election Report: An indictment of incompetence – by Steven Rosenfeld and Bob Fitrakis (June 25, 2005)
What to say to this: “We’ve never unseated a war time president” – tommcintyre (Wed Jun-29-05)
Millions of Mysterious Dollars Paid by RNC Team Bush to Sproul & Associates– Blogged by Brad (6/30/2005)
Election Assessment Hearing – (Wednesday, June 29 2005)
An Open Letter to John Tanner, Chief, Voting Section, U.S. Department of Justice– Bob Fitrakis (July 2, 2005)
DOJ WHITEWASHES OHIO ELECTION INVESTIGATION! CONYERS ‘FLABBERGASTED’ IN REBUTTAL!– Blogged by Brad (7/1/2005)
DNC Ohio Election Report data were obtained from BLACKWELL!!! Hmmm… – Nothing Without Hope (Thu Jun-30-05)
I figured out the coverup!!! The DLC Colluded with the fraud, on purpose! – LightningFlash (Thu Jun-30-05)
Reminder: The Truth started to become known November 2, 2004. (Excellent post!) LightningFlash (Sun Jul-03-05)
Southern politician speaks out on election fraud – MelissaB (Sun Jul-03-05)
Comparison of the Kerry – Fingerhut – Connaly vote in the 2004 OH election – Time for change (Mon Jul-04-05)
Response from researchers who contributed to the DNC OH Election Report -Time for change (Wed Jul-06-05)
Could funds stolen in Iraq have been used to finance GOP in 2004? – spooked (Wed Jul-06-05)
Pastor: â€œI donâ€™t need to know how the machines were hackedâ€ (EAH report) EXCELLENT POST! Amaryllis (Wed Jul-06-05)
UIC Prof’s Statistical Analysis Casts Doubt on ’04 Election Result – Twist_U_Up (Thu Jul-07-05)
Our Evidence vs. Their Evidence – TruthIsAll (Sat May-07-05)
Coingate and Bush connections – MelissaB (Sun Jul-10-05)
Here’s what the Carter Center said about our election system in 2004 -MelissaB (Tue Jul-12-05)
Handbook for Ohio Voter Activists, Version 2.0 – tommcintyre (Wed Jul-13-05)
THE UNANSWERED QUESTION: WHO REALLY WON IN 2004? -autorank (Thu Jul-14-05)
Bush is the only person to win without NY and CA – KingFlorez (Fri Jul-15-05)
US Count Votes: new version of Working Paper (Updated June 26, 2005) – eomer (Sat Jul-02-05)
What happened to the massive new Democrat voter registration in Ohio 2004? – Time for change (Sun Jul-17-05)
Congresswoman McKinney Reveals Shocking Data on Diebold and Elections in Georgia – Fly by night (Wed Jul-20-05)
Florida, Ohio, Baghdad – Columbus (Mon Jul-18-05)
Harper’s Forum Thursday: WHAT WENT WRONG IN OHIO> – Stephanie (Wed Jul-20-05)
Marriage-Gate (Did Bush steal the Election through Bigotry?) – ck4829 (Wed Jul-20-05)
Bush, Schwarz dismal approval ratings, and election fraud – Peace Patriot (Thu Jul-21-05)
MUST READ: A STATISTICAL MYSTERY; STRANGE DEATH OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY – TruthIsAll (Thu Jul-21-05)
None dare call it stolen – Ohio, the election, and America’s servile press by Mark Crispin Miller (July 24, 2005)
The Clint Curtis / Tom Feeney / Yang Enterprises Vote-Rigging Scandal (Key Articles in the Series)
Rightwingers, ‘News’ Sites Fall Hook, Line & Sinker for ACVR Scam Report– BradBlog (8/3/2005)
OH MY OHIO: Bernadette Noe Said Complicit in Gaming 2004 Elections – BradBlog (8/1/2005)
“Coingate” and the GOP theft of the 2004 presidential election. by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman (July 29, 2005)
What if NY Times was right about massive Dem. increase in OH voter reg.? – Time for change (Fri Jul-22-05)
HIGHLY IRREGULAR – The Ohio election story is going to come back. By Matt Taibbi, NYPress ( Sat Jul-23-05)
Suit filed RE: Ohio elections – mod mom (Thu Jul-28-05)
HOW TO REGAIN CLEAN ELECTIONS: A “We the People” Uprising – Kip Humphrey (Sun Jul-31-05)
Mr. Gonzales, Read this re Ohio Fraud: – mod mom (Mon Aug-01-05)
Gonzales clears Ohio of Election Fraud! (Can you believe this???) – Carolab (Sun Jul-31-05)
Did the GOP steal another Ohio Election? – by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (August 5, 2005)
Republican Blogger Suggest ‘Fraud’ a ‘Possibility’ in Clermont County… – BradBlog (8/5/2005)
ON THE ROPES -Don’t expect much noise from the Democrats over Ohio. -By Matt Taibbi, NYPress (8/5/2005)
Phony GOP ‘Voting Rights’ Group Delivers Onslaught of Disinfo Today! – BradBlog (8/2/2005)
John Kerry and George W. Bush are both Skull and Bones members! Interesting…
Investigation into the 2004 US Election – Center for Cooperative Research
OHIO: 2004 vs. 2000 Judicial vs. Presidential Votes – Bill Bored (Mon Aug-08-05)
Canada is singing our song: “Election Fraud Continues in the US” – MelissaB (Fri Aug-12-05)
What if the Democrats Continue to Fail and America Falls? -OpEdNews (Sat Aug-13-05)
No Paper Trail Left Behind: The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election – By Dennis Loo, Ph.D. Cal Poly Pomona (August 2005)
“ACVR, America’s Fake ‘Voting Rights’ Group, Enlists Fake ‘Democrat’ to Shill for Fake ‘Election Fraud’ Report!” – BradBlog (8/8/2005)
about those white stickers…… – garybeck (Wed Aug-24-05)
Ohio Governor’s ethics violations expose money trail to stolen 2004 election – by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman (August 30, 2005)
Citizens Request Recount in San Diego Mayoral Race – “Enron by the Sea” – raw story (Thursday August 18, 2005)
What They Did Last Fall by PAUL KRUGMAN (August 19, 2005)
Electronic Vote Switching from Kerry to Bush – 9:1 swing state ratio – Time for change (Fri Aug-19-05)
Don’t Prettify Our History By Paul Krugman (Monday 22 August 2005)
Extensive online book: “Vote Fraud And Election Issues” – tommcintyre (Sun Aug-21-05)
The Bombs in the Basement – Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor – The Crisis Papers (August 22, 2005)
The Veteran Of Fallujah Defeated By OH’s Humidity -autorank (Tuesday, 23 August 2005)
Dear Dr. Dean: – TruthIsAll (Wed Jun-29-05)
MUST READ: Keefer, Fitrakis, Baiman, Simon, Freeman, Mealy – TruthIsAll (Sun Aug-14-05)
“Elections in Crisis” – Bev Harris, Bob Fitrakis, OAKLAND 9/13 – GuvWurld (Sat Aug-27-05)
The National Summit to Save Our Elections Convenes in Portland, Oregon – Report By DU & PI Poster autorank ( Oct. 3 2005)
Iraq Elections Fixed? – Robert F. Worth NYT (October 4th, 2005)
Afghan Election Rife with Fraud – Carlotta Gall NYT (October 3rd, 2005)
Legal Battle for 2004 Recount Continues in New Mexico – by David Edwards (9/06/2005)
More Trouble for Diebold, This Time in Georgia… – Brad Friedman (9/27/2005)
2004 Election Ranked #3 on List of Stories Ignored by Mainstream Media – Winter Patriot on the BradBlog (9/22/2005)
Diebold’s Tough Luck, VR’s Promise, and a New Ad for America from the Velvet Revolution… – BradBlog (9/23/2005)
DIEB-THROAT Weighs in on Diebold’s Stunning 15.5% Wednesday Stock Plunge – BradBlog (9/22/2005)
Sham Baker/Carter Election Reform Commission Releases Report – BradBlog (9/22/2005)
California Election Protection Network – (10/04/2005)
DIEB-THROAT : ‘Diebold System One of Greatest Threats Democracy Has Ever Known’ – BradBlog (9/15/2005)
A Quick-ish DIEB-THROAT Follow-up… – BradBlog (9/18/2005)
Clint Curtis Rebuilds Prototype!! This must get out!! – by KerryReallyWon on DU (Wed Sep-07-05)
Article : raising more questions about the 2004 recount. – FogerRox on DU (Fri Sep-09-05)
FEMA Chief Brown Paid Millions in False Claims to Help Bush Win Fla. Votes in ’04 By Jason Leopold (Sat Sep-10-05)
What if NY Times was right about massive Dem. increase in OH voter reg.? – Time for change on DU (Fri Jul-22-05)
NVRI: Federal Judge Sets Expedited Schedule for Lawsuit (Ohio!) – eomer on DU (Sat Sep-17-05)
EAC has interpreted HAVA to require paper records for recounts! – Bill Bored on DU (Sat Sep-17-05)
How the GOP Stole America’s 2004 Election and Is Rigging 2008 – By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (9/20/2005)
Paper trails are NOT the answer – Mark Crispin Miller (9/20/2005)
â€œElection Weekend Act of 2005,â€ – Congressman Mike Honda (4/18/2005)
A MUST READ — Bob Fleischer: Software IS a Problem – AtLiberty on DU (Fri Sep-23-05)
Citizens’ Commission to Counter Carter-Baker – Voter Voices Documented! – demodonkey on DU (Thu Sep-22-05)
HOT BOOKS ON THE (S)ELECTION OF 2004 !!! – marions ghost on DU (Mon Sep-19-05)
Who’s Counting goes LIVE! – jen4clark on DU (Tue Sep-27-05)
Carter says Gore won 2000 election – John Byrne RAW STORY (9/22/2005)
DNC Report Conclusion of â€œNo Widespread Fraudâ€ in Ohio Election Disputed – Time for change on DU (Tue Sep-27-05)
Citizens Disagree Vehemently With the Findings of the Baker-Carter Comm. Final Election Report – autorank on DU (Wed Sep-28-05)
Freeman vs Mitofsky debate! – Melissa G on DU (Mon Sep-26-05)
New Mexico lawsuit update – garybeck – SolarBus.org (Thu Sep-29-05)
The Importance of Election Reform AND Exposing the 2004 Election – Time for change on DU (Mon Oct-03-05)
Ernest Partridge: While the Iron is Hot (emphasizes election fraud) – AtLiberty on DU (Tue Oct-04-05)
Panel: E-voting vulnerable By Anne Broache, CNET News.com (10-07-05)
Research and Commentary on the 2004 US Presidential Election (Steve Freeman)
Mediastudy.com : Academic Papers & Studies Questioning 2004 Voting Anomalies & MORE (11/30/05)
A Discussion with Mark Crispin Miller on Democratic Underground (11-05-05)
Eye On Ohio: The Informed Citizen’s Guide to the 2004 Election (11-30-05)
Ballot and Soul : Democracy needs a revolution every generation By ROBERT C. KOEHLER (October 6, 2005)
OH: Republican Mole at Toledo Blade Spiked Coingate in Jan 2004 – autorank on DU (Thu Oct-06-05)
Electionline report on recounts (Thursday, October 06, 2005)
Touchscreen Voting Increases Annual Election Costs by 40% (Mon Oct-10-05)
Beware of PURGES! – mod mom on DU (Mon Oct-10-05)
Michael Shnayerson, Vanity Fair: The Election 4/04 – AtLiberty on DU (Wed Oct-12-05)
GAO REPORT CONFIRMS CONCERNS ABOUT SECURITY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES! – BradBlog (10/20/2005)
Time Line of Exit Poll Irregularities Election 2004: Dopp and Freeman – Stevepol on DU (Sat Oct-22-05)
MONKEY BUSINESS – A look at vote-counting mischief and the potential for more by Miriam Raftery ( 10/19/05)
Steve Freeman Summary of Debate – Melissa G on DU (Thu Oct-20-05)
Why can’t the left face the Stolen Elections of 2004 & 2008? by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (October 18, 2005)
Is election reform bad for your health? by Carolab on DU (Fri Oct-28-05)
Watergate-style money laundering indictments stoke Ohio’s stolen election by kster on DU (Fri Oct-28-05)
What does Judy Miller have to do with Bush’s reelection? MelissaB on DU (Sat Oct-29-05)
New Math PROOF that ESI/Mitofsky Logic is Invalid (Not Correct) – sunshinekathy on DU (Sat Oct-29-05)
Ohio Precinct-level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount sunshinekathy (Wed Nov-02-05)
GOP challenges rights of hundreds of voters (WA) – cal04 on DU ( Sat Nov-05-05)
SHYING AWAY FROM DEMOCRACY – Land Shark on DU (Sat Nov-05-05)
Why they went after Kevin Shelley and what it means for CA elections – Amaryllis on DU (Sun Nov-06-05)
Emergency warning to poll workers from cyber scientists on election day – Amaryllis on DU (Mon Nov-07-05)
Crime Report: Los Angeles Denies Public Access to Central Tabulator – Einsteinia on DU (Wed Nov-09-05)
disconnect between the pre-election polls and the “reported” election results in Ohio on Issue 1 vs. Issues 2-5 – (Wed Nov-09-05)
Is Los Angeles Above the Law? – Einsteinia (Sat Nov-05-05)
A Crime Without a Name By ROBERT C. KOEHLER (November 10, 2005)
What John Kerry said about 2004â€™s stolen election… killing American democracy by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman (11-10-05)
Update on purging of > 100 K voters from Cuyahoga Co. voter roles – Time for change (Wed Nov-09-05)
State plans to investigate voting chaos; Tuesday’s problems are latest for Lucas County – OH – althecat (Thu Nov-10-05)
With Diebold,you tweak to ‘get the reports you need’ – Algorem on DU (Fri Nov-11-05)
MSM locally Quotes voter: Sequoia E-voting makes us “another Florida” – Land Shark on DU (Fri Nov-11-05)
Fitrakis & Wasserman discuss Ohio’s referendum electronic “defeats” – AtLiberty on DU (Sat Nov-12-05)
BradBlog: Plaintiffs Suddenly Blocked in New Mexico ’04 Election Lawsuit – Nothing Without Hope on DU (Sat Nov-12-05)
The Staggeringly Impossible Outcome for Ohio’s ’05 Election – lizzieforkerry on DU (Sun Nov-13-05)
Green Party Call: Put HEAT on Media to Cover GAO Report on Election Fraud – IndyOp on DU (Thu Nov-17-05)
Brad: Something very rotten suddenly occuring in CA, plus more on OH – Amaryllis on DU (Fri Nov-18-05)
2004 voter turnout 63.8% not 55% as has been stated – ISUGRADIA on DU (Fri Nov-18-05)
Bush LOST. RESIGN Now. New TruthIsAll – autorank on DU (Tue Nov-22-05)
Subject: Bush is ILLIGITIMATE. Could NOT win without fraud. Challenge me – autorank on DU (Mon Oct-10-05)
The Role of Voter Registration Purging/Fraud in Kerry’s loss of Ohio – Time for change on DU (Wed Nov-09-05)
(Brad Friedman) MSM to American Democracy: Drop Dead – MelissaB on DU (Fri Nov-04-05)
the GAO report on e-voting and e-counting at a glance for busy folks – freedomfries on DU (Sat Nov-05-05)
Trouble with voting Machines in Virginia – M_Demo_M on DU (Tue Nov-08-05)
Parallels Between the JFK Assassination and the 2004 Presidential Election – Time for change on DU (Fri Nov-25-05)
BREAKING: Florida Improperly Certified Diebold TSX – AmBlue on DU (Mon Nov-28-05)
Fitrakis and Wasserman to brief Congressional Progressives – emlev on DU (Mon Nov-28-05)
Election theft Makes “top ten” stories ignored by media in 2005 – kster on DU (Thu Dec-01-05)
Channel the TRUTH: Gore won. Kerry won. Naysayer heads will explode now – autorank on DU (Thu Dec-01-05)
Bradblog: Diebold certified in NC after all by former Diebold rep! – Amaryllis on DU (Thu Dec-01-05)
Mark Crispin Miller Connects the Dots on Election Problems – Buzzflash! (January 16, 2006)
Mark Crispin Miller Connects the Dots on Election Problems part 2 – Buzzflash! (February 9, 2006)
Diebolding NC – the timeline,cronies, ties to NC corruption investigation – WillYourVoteBCounted on DU (Sun Dec-04-05)
Sign the Voter Confidence Petition in Support of H.R. 550
RawStory: Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes… wilms on DU (12-07-05)
Bradblog: Potential securities fraud class action lawsuit against Diebold – amarylis on DU (12-07-05)
Red State NC Fights Back against Diebold! Another Lawsuit Filed! – KoKo01 on DU (12-13-05)
Wally O’Dell, Diebold CEO, resigns! – garybeck on DU (12-15-05)
Best website I’ve ever seen on voting system company sleaziness… – amaryllis on DU (12-13-05)
Coup d’etat Redux in Ohio! – Einsteinia on DU ( Dec-12-05)
Leon County dumps Diebold!!! BBV Breaking News!!! – Einsteinia on DU ( Dec-16-05)
California Citizens Coordinate Diebold Takedown – GuvWorld on DU (Dec-17-05 )
Crisis Papers: Dear Howard Dean — Why Bother? – AtLiberty on DU (Dec-14-05)
1.1 for Elections. TIA, Even “Plainer” English. Law of Large Numbers,etc – autorank on DU (Dec-17-05)
High court observers see (Texas) redistricting case as pivotal – papau on DU (Dec-14-05)
Voting system said to fail – kster on DU (Dec-16-05)
OH: New Blackwell Directive: No More RANDOM recounts – mod mom on DU (Dec-16-05)
Brad Blog: Volusia County, FL Dumps Diebold Too! – understandinglife (Dec-16-05)
Who’s counting the votes ? – kster on DU (Dec-17-05)
HuffPo – Avi Rubin: The Dirty Little Secrets of Voting System Testing Labs – Wilms on DU (Dec-17-05)
dkos: voter suppression expert nominated to the FEC! Who are the others? – freedomfries (Dec-26-05)
200% Voter Turnout in Alaska – Blue_In_AK on DU (Dec-21-05)
NH: Doing time for election fraud!!! NH Republican – autorank on DU (Dec-20-05)
AK: Democrats question (2004) vote results – Tabulation method…doubted – wilms on DU (Dec-21-05)
Fixing Elections for Fun and Profit – Wilms (Dec-21-05)
Huge demonstrations in Iraq – “elections were rigged” – garybeck (Dec-23-05)
How to Count Thousands of Paper Ballots by Hand – Wilms (Dec-30-05)
Mark Crispin Miller: Why Dems are in denial about the stolen election – Amaryllis (Jan-02-06)
Deborah Bowen (CA Dem4SoS) throws down gauntlet on secret vote counting! – Peace Patriot (Dec-31-05)
The Crisis Papers: In 2006, Voting Fraud is the Keystone Issue – AtLiberty (Jan-10-06)
A Chat with Lance deHaven-Smith: Al Gore really did beat George W. Bush – Wilms (Jan-09-06)
Brad Blog: Bob Ney of Ohio’s Connection To Electoral Fraud – AtLiberty (Jan-10-06)
The Gun Is Smoking! Election Archive Releases Analysis of OH! – Stevepol (Jan-21-06)
The Harri Hursti Hack And Its Importance To Our Nation – AtLiberty (Feb-09-06)
Evidence of Fraud and Disenfranchisement in Ohio, 2004 : A Partial List – Wilms (Jan-19-06)
Mark Crispin Miller: Why Won’t The Media Touch My Book? – althecat (Jan-25-06)
New Method for Flagging Vote Miscount Released – ramblin_dave (Jan-21-06)
Grand Theft Election Ohio.com – McCamy Taylor (Jan-21-06)
Internet conspiracy theorists, take a bow. The Great WahPoo Acknowledges U – wilms (Jan-24-06)
Goodbye Terry Gross, we never knew yeâ€”on liberal media denial – MelissaB (Jan-23-06)
Stop the Lies, Fight the Fix: Don’t Let Them Hide the Bodies – wilms (Jan-23-06)
Did NSA help Bush hack the vote? – IndyOp (Jan-24-06)
You think democracy is dead in OH? Get a load of PA! – Bill Bored (Jan-26-06)
State (AK) Refuses to Release Public Records-Claims Diebold Data is Proprietary – Wilms (Feb-07-06)
Study of Provisionals in Cleveland – mod mom (Jan-25-06)
In Response to Hursti Hack, MD Election Admin. Expresses â€˜Great Concernâ€™ – Wilms (Feb-08-06)
The government spied on me because I was protesting the stolen election – Kip Humphrey (Jan-28-06)
Looks like Bill Richardson (NM) has turned into a lion for paper ballot!! – Stevepol (Jan-29-06)
Pentagon Seeks Power Over Elections in Arizona – Wilms (Jan-30-06)
FREE PRESS: OH GOP Poised to Gut Election Protection – mod mom (Feb-07-06)
(Lynn Landes) Voting Systems Lawsuit Reaches U.S. Supreme Court – Wilms (Feb-07-06)
AZ: FBI seizes ballots in close ’04 legislative race – Wilms (Feb-03-06)
“I Saw it Hacked”….Eye witness to election fraud – autorank (Jan-25-06)
BradBlog >> EXCLUSIVE: SECURITIES FRAUD LITIGATION FILED AGAINST DIEBOLD, – sabra (Dec-16-05)
DUers “Bush Cheated” video now up at Huffington Post. – bleever (Feb-06-06)
Election Tampering “at the Behest of…State…Federal Republican Parties” – wilms (Feb-05-06)
Revote in Ohio After More Votes Than Voters Recorded on Diebold Machines – Wilms (Feb-07-06)
Election officials fear ’06 season of the glitch – Wilms (Feb-06-06)
Diebold Reserves Right to “Manipulate the Data” Before Releasing it! – Amaryllis (Feb-10-06)
The GOP cares very much about minorities voting. – Wilms (Feb-07-06)
Maureen Farrell…. Beautifully Sums Up The Election Fraud Consipracy… – althecat (Feb-10-06)
Proposed law in NJ to outlaw paper ballots – FogerRox (Feb-10-06)
State (Alaska) to turn over voting files from 2004 to Democrats – Blue_In_AK (Feb-11-06)
NJ Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Challenging Electronic Voting – Wilms (Feb-13-06)
Pressure on Diebold and the Stolen 04 Election on Daily Kos – mod mom (Feb-13-06)
IMPORTANT: The Effects of PURGES in Franklin Co., Ohio: – mod mom (Feb-18-06)
Andrew Gumbel: How to Steal an Election (Excerpt) – AtLiberty (Feb-16-06)
Hackett has election stolen then betrayed by Party – autorank (Feb-16-06)
UNCERTIFIED! (Maryland) – Bill Bored (Feb-18-06)
SHIT!!! Diebold to be certified in CA … with yet-unstated conditions. – nicknameless (Feb-21-06)
Despite Illegalities, Diebold Election Machines Certified In CA– GuvWurld ( Feb-19-06)
Wisconsin Approves the Vote-PAD Assistive Device – kster (Feb-18-06)
Now the Onus is on Counties and Diebold to Risk Multi-Million $ Lawsuits – Wilms (Feb-20-06)
3. AZ: Maricopa County (Phoenix) â€“ Huge Republican Election Fraud Scandal – kster (Feb-22-06)
Is The GOP “Shock-The-Vote Gang” Planning to Heist California? – AtLiberty (Feb-21-06)
Hang On…: Cobb Demands Reinstatement of Ohio Recount Lawsuit – Wilms (Feb-23-06)
Designed for “Failure”? Discovery of Diebold’s Bugs & Cryptographic Key – nicknameless (Feb-24-06)
Watchdog Group Questions 2004 Fla. Vote (+) – kster (Feb-24-06)
We Need Help in Confirming Election Fraud in Cleveland 2004 – Time for change (Feb-25-06)
two new Supreme Court cases will affect future elections: – Nothing Without Hope (Feb-26-06)
To Ignore Is To Participate – Notes from the Hawaiian Trenches – Wilms (Feb-28-06)
Why do Americans refuse to face Election Fraud, and malign those who do? – Amaryllis (Feb-27-06)
Diebold Whistleblower Facing Three Felony Counts – freedomfries (Feb-27-06)
BRADBLOG: AZ Election Official’s Diebold Tirade Caught on Tape – mod mom (Feb-27-06)
Cleveland Audit Reveals Vote Count Discrepancy in Bushâ€™s Favorâ€“Need Help! – Time for change (Mar-03-06)
Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio voter registrations put Bush back in the White – kster (Mar-03-06)
WOW! ** CA’s Sen Bowen Rips rethug SoS over Diebold Certification ** (3/1) – nicknameless (Mar-02-06)
We lost a Big One in PA today…And I can’t figure out how… – Junkdrawer (Mar-04-06)
A Plan to Elect the President by Popular Vote – SuperWonk (Mar-03-06)
DIEBOLD – 2008 “The fix is in” – Moscow Times – kster (Mar-04-06)
“Definitive Proof” of Election Fraud? – LongTomH (Mar-06-06)
AP picks up Sancho story today ! This is MSM reporting, guys! Don’t faint. – Amaryllis (Mar-05-06)
Florida newspaper finds thousands of mysterious entries in voter database – seafan (Mar-07-06)
5.4 million Americans disenfranchised – SophieZ (Mar-06-06)
Exit polls 2004 discrepancies made quick & EASY for the math impaired ! – Amaryllis (Mar-08-06)
Bradblog: VERY good news RE: Diebold in MD! Go get ’em, gov & MD house! – Amaryllis (Mar-06-06)
Miami Herald: Election official hammered for telling truth about Diebold – Amaryllis (Mar-08-06)
Shit. FIRST STOLEN ELECTION OF 2006: Voting Machine Problems in TX… – IndyOp (Mar-08-06)
“Why should we trust the results of elections?” David Dill – kpete (Mar-08-06)
“NO, YES, NO: Alaska Now Refuses Release of 2004 Election Data Citing Security Concerns!” – BradBlog (2/24/06)
“AP: 100,000 ERRORS REPORTED ON SEQUOIA VOTING MACHINES IN PALM BEACH, FL 2004 ELECTION!” – BradBlog (2/23/06)
“Why do Diebold’s Touch-Screen Voting Machines Have Built-In Wireless Infrared Data Transfer Ports?” – BradBlog (2/22/06)
An Appearance of Guilt – By Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers (March 7, 2005)
Hart InterCivic Whistleblower Warned of Texas, Ohio E-Voting ‘Fraud’ Concerns in 2004! – BradBlog (3/13/2006)
High-tech voting hits snags – Chicago Tribune (March 21, 2006)
LEGAL ACTION TO BE FILED IN CALIFORNIA TO ‘HALT USE OR PURCHASE OF DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINES’ IN STATE! – BradBlog (3/20/2006)
Sequoia E-Vote Systems Found ‘Hackable’ in PA, Testing Shut Down After Machine Failures! – BradBlog (3/30/2006)
The new face of apartheid: J. Kenneth Hackwell – Bob Fitrakis (March 30, 2006)
TrueVote MD releases docs detailing Diebold failures, violations of law – Amaryllis (Mar-08-06)
Third elections worker indicted over presidential recount – kster (Mar-09-06)
Star-Telegram front page: computer “glitch” — election – antigop (Mar-09-06)
FL: Ion Sancho Initiates Legal Proceedings Against Diebold – Wilms (Mar-08-06)
Gov. Jeb Bush, S.o.S. Sue Cobb threaten Leon Co. election takeover! – Steve A Play (Mar-08-06)
St. Pete Times: “No conspiracy needed to support paper trail” -MSM, guys! – Amaryllis (Mar-13-06)
Isn’t “computer glitch” just the most outrageous euphemism for “rigged?” – Amaryllis (Mar-10-06)
Elections Forum Friends of TruthIsAll, Please Go Here – autorank (Mar-10-06)
Can an SoS legally disseminate information known to be false? – Wilms (Mar-10-06)
New Yorker: The Popular Vote Issue – SuperWonk (Mar-10-06)
Maryland House votes to oust Diebold machines – FogerRox (Mar-10-06)
Brad: 3rd OH election official indicted on charges of gaming ’04 recount– Amaryllis (Mar-10-06)
Brad:MD House Votes 137 to 0 to Ban Diebold Touch-Screens in 2006! – Amaryllis (Mar-11-06)
Diebold ExpressPoll 4000 – MGKrebs (Mar-11-06)
Yet Another Theft Of Voter Data From A Local Democratic Party HQ – Mister Ed (Mar-12-06)
VIDEO – ACLU Premiers ‘Voting Rights’ Documentary – dzika (Mar-13-06)
Brad:New voting machine co. whistleblower speaks out; TX primary afftected – Amaryllis (Mar-13-06)
VoteTrustUSA – Electronic Voting Machines: Programmed for Failure? – Wilms (Apr-01-06)
Koehler: What price will we extract from hero of democracy? (Heller) – Amaryllis (Mar-13-06)
An Analogous Event to the Warren County “Lockdown” – Colombia 1998 – Time for change (Mar-15-06)
Stop the Election Day cheating — Steinback in Today’s Miami Herald!!! – KaryninMiami (Mar-16-06)
WTF: “Toggle switch glitch likely caused some ballots to be counted twice” – Wilms (Mar-17-06)
WaPo: “How to steal an election” (Steve Freeman) Is MSM getting it? – Amaryllis (Mar-28-06)
Utah Election Auditor discovers Diebold real and potential problems – papau (Mar-19-06)
IN: Centralized Registration Database PROBLEMS. Test May 2nd. – autorank (Mar-20-06)
Chi-Town E-Voting Meltdown — 414 Memory Cartridges Missing – AtLiberty (Mar-24-06)
Electoral Dysfunction – Official Exposes Gaping Flaw – Get’s Ignored – Wilms (Mar-23-06)
Chicago Tribune reporting many problems with Sequoia machines in Illinois – xray s (Mar-23-06)
Election Whistle-Blower Stymied by Vendors (From the Washington Post!) – MelissaB (Mar-28-06)
How Elections Became a Criminal Enterprise – Amaryllis (Mar-26-06)
Just saw last Tuesday’s Montel show – ACTION ALERT VOTING MACHINES >>> – helderheid (Mar-21-06)
A Repeat of Election Fraud 2004 Must Be Prevented in 2006 and 2008 – Time for change (Mar-25-06)
BREAKING: E-MACHINES FAIL! TX PRIMARY RECOUNT HALTED BY SEC OF STATE! – BradBlog (Mar-22-06)
Political Notebook: Author argues elections bigger gamble than slots – NVMojo (Mar-28-06)
USA TODAY Front Page Report is a Big Step – Senator (Mar-28-06)
Choice Point in CA?! THOUSANDS already kicked off of voter rolls.– nicknameless (Mar-30-06)
Conyers endorses Bonifaz for Secretary of Commonwealth!!!!!!! – paineinthearse (Mar-29-06)
CA’s rethug SoS made a deal with bush to eliminate eligible voters!! – nicknameless (Mar-31-06)
Bob Koehler quotes Land Shark in his column! “Faith Based Voting” – Amaryllis (Mar-29-06)
Election Fraud Tip; The Doomsday Device for Democracy — A How To – Land Shark (Apr-03-06)
“Touch Screen Voting Isn’t the Right Answer” Balt.Sun-This is really good!– Amaryllis (Apr-01-06)
MIT Professors who dismissed election fraud charges in FL & OH funded by right-wing thinktanks? – nicknameless (Mar-31-06)
Brad Blog: Wingnuts Concerned Re E-Voting- Hugo Chavez May Own Sequoia – Humor_In_Cuneiform (Apr-02-06)
Things that SHOULD make Republican voters go ‘Hmmmmm’ … – NanceGreggs (Mar-29-06)
Introduction: Did George W. Bush steal America’s 2004 election? by Bob Fitrakis(June 16, 2005)
No Paper Trail Left Behind: The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election – By Dennis Loo, Ph.D. Cal Poly Pomona (August 2005)
None Dare Call It Stolen: Ohio, the election, and America’s servile press – Mark Crispin Miller (Wednesday, September 7, 2005)
The Harri Hursti Hack And Its Importance To Our Nation – AtLiberty (Feb-09-06)
How They Stole Ohio : The GOP 4-step Recipe to ‘Blackwell’ the USA in 2008 – Buzzflash (June 2, ’06)
Was the 2004 Election Stolen? BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. – Rolling Stone Magazine (June 1, ’06)

Comments Off on 2004 Election Theft.com: General · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

Evidence? We Don’t Want Your Stinkin’ Evidence!

Posted in General, Main Stream Media, TAKE ACTION! on January 24th, 2006

January 24, 2005
By Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers

Like biologists with evolution and atmospheric scientists with global climate change, those who warn us that our elections have been stolen and will be stolen again must now be wondering, "just how much evidence must it take to make our case and to convince enough of the public to force reform and secure our ballots?"

The answer, apparently, is no amount – no amount, that is, until more minds are opened. And that is more than a question of evidence, it is a question of collective sanity.

In his new book Fooled Again, Mark Crispin Miller not only presents abundant evidence that the 2004 election was stolen, but in addition he examines the political, social, and media environment which made this theft possible.

When I first read the book immediately after its publication, I confess that I was a bit disappointed. What I had hoped to find was a compendium of evidence, from front to back. To be sure, Miller gives us plenty of evidence, meticulously documented. But evidence tells us that the election was stolen. Miller goes beyond that to explain how and why it was stolen, and how the culprits have managed, so far, to get away with it.

So on second reading, I find that it was my expectation and not Miller’s book that was flawed. We have evidence aplenty, to be found in John Conyers’ report, and the new book by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, in addition to the Black Box Voting website among numerous others. Soon to be added is Prof. Steven Freeman’s book on the statistical evidence of election fraud. What we don’t gain from these sources is an understanding and appreciation of the context in which this crime was committed. This we learn from reading Miller’s book.

If, in fact, the last two presidential elections have been stolen, and if in addition there is a preponderance of evidence to support this claim, then this is the most significant political news in the 230 year history of our republic.

So what is the response of the allegedly "opposing" party to the issue of election fraud? Virtual silence. And of the news media? More silence. Case in point: the media response to Mark Crispin Miller’s Fooled Again. As he reports: "There have been no national reviews of Fooled Again. No network or cable TV show would have the author on to talk about the book. NPR has refused to have him on… Only one daily newspaper – the Florida Sun-Sentinel – has published a review."

Force the question of election fraud and demand an answer, and the most likely response will be a string of ad hominem insults – "sore losers," "paranoid," "conspiracy theorists" – attacks on the messenger and a dismissal of the message. We’ve heard them, many times over.

Persist, and you might get as a reply, not evidence that the elections were honest and valid (there is very little of that), but rather some rhetorical questions as to the attitudes and motives of the alleged perpetrators and to the practical difficulties of their successfully accomplishing a stolen national election. Questions such as these:

How could the GOP campaign managers believe that they could get away with a stolen election?
Why would they dare risk failure, and the subsequent criminal indictments and dissolution of their party?
What could possibly motivate them to subvert the foundations of our democracy?

The answer to the first two questions is essentially the same: they believed and they dared because they controlled the media and thus the message. Miller’s sub-text throughout his book is that the great electoral hijack has been accomplished with the cooperation, one might even say the connivance, of the mainstream media, without which the crime could never have succeeded.

Immediately following the election, the critics were shouted down with such headlines as these: "Election paranoia surfaces; Conspiracy theorists call results rigged" (Baltimore Sun), "Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud is dismissed" (Boston Globe), "Latest Conspiracy Theory – Kerry Won – Hits the Ether" (Washington Post), and in the "flagship" newspaper, the New York Times: "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried." (Miller, 38.)

Even more damaging than the slanted "reports" in the media, was the silence. The Conyers investigations? Ignored. The scholarly statistical analyses of exit poll discrepancies? Ignored. Evidence that Bush cheated in the debates with a listening device? Dismissed. The recent GAO report on e-voting vulnerabilities, and the Florida demonstration hacking of computer vote compilation? Ignored. And most appalling of all: the media blackout last week of Al Gore’s eloquent speech, warning of the threat to our Constitution and our liberties posed by the Bush regime.

And all this merely scratches the surface of media malpractice. For more, read the book.

The motivation to steal the election, says Miller, combined religious (or quasi-religious) dogma and self-righteousness and a perception of the opposing Democratic party, not as the loyal opposition, but as the enemy – deserving not defeat, but annihilation. ("You are either with us or against us," says Bush). Together, this adds up to what Miller calls "The Requisite Fanaticism." He writes:

It is not "conservatism" that impelled the theft of the election, nor was it merely greed or the desire for power per se… The movement now in power is not entirely explicable in such familiar terms… The project here is ultimately pathological and essentially anti-political, albeit Machiavellian on a scale, and to a degree, that would have staggered Machiavelli. The aim is not to master politics, but to annihilate it. Bush, Rove, DeLay, Ralph Reed, et al. believe in "politics" in the same way that they and their corporate beneficiaries believe in "competition." In both cases, the intention is not to play the game but to end it – because the game requires some tolerance of the Other, and tolerance is precisely what these bitter-enders most despise… (Miller 81-2.)

Reiterating a theme that is prominent in his writing, Miller points out that the psychological pathology most conspicuously at work in the right’s demolition of politics is projection: the attribution in "the enemy" of one’s own moral depravity:

The Bushevik, so full of hate, hates politics, and would get rid of it; and yet he is himself expert at dirty politics: an expertise that he regards as purely imitative and defensive. Because his enemies, he thinks, are all "political" – dishonest, ruthless, cynical, unprincipled – he is thereby "forced" to be "political" as well, in order to "fight fire with fire." As we have seen, this paranoid conviction of the Other’s perfidy suffuses and impels the propaganda campaigns of the right, and it was especially important in Bush/Cheney’s drive to steal the last election. Indeed it was their firm conviction that they had to steal the race, in order to frustrate the Democrats’ attempt to do it first. (Miller, 82.)

This is just a brief sampling of Miller’s astute political and psychological analysis of the "why" and the "how" of the stolen elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. That analysis, which takes up about a third of the book (Chapters 3 and 4), adds an invaluable dimension to our understanding of the political disaster that has befallen our Republic, and that analysis suggests guidelines in the struggle to avoid the theft of the upcoming elections of 2006 and 2008.

I have written at length about what might be done if we are to restore the ballot box to the voters. These crucial steps come immediately to mind, as I read Miller’s Fooled Again.

Briefly, we need a media, we need an opposition party, we need an aroused public, and we need a miracle. But take heart: history tells us that political crises have a way of producing miracles.

The mainstream media (MSM) must be discredited and an alternative media established in its place. The internet offers a voice to an opposition that is excluded from the mainstream, and a few independent publications and broadcasts remain, however feeble in comparison to the MSM. If a sizeable portion of the public deserts the mainstream, and directly informs the publishers and broadcasters why they are doing so, the media, and particularly their sponsors and advertisers, will take notice. Recently, some of the media have become more critical of the Bush regime and the GOP Congress, but it is, by and large, too little and too late.

So either the commercial media must resume the role of watchdog of government power, as intended by Jefferson and Madison, or it must be made irrelevant. The Russian dissidents late in the Soviet era have given us an example: if you have no media, create one, even if it is suppressed by the government. It was called "Samizdat" – a painstaking process of typing several carbon copies of forbidden manuscripts on condition that the recipients would do likewise. Similarly, the Iranian dissidents during the reign of the Shah copied and distributed audio tapes of revolutionary speeches. In the computer age, there are huge advantages: Internet publication and, f the Internet is taken from us, CDs and minidiscs. For now, the Internet is our Samizdat.

The Democratic party is the only potentially effective opposition party in sight. But at the moment, it is a toothless tiger. We must tell that party that it must either lead the struggle to restore electoral integrity or step aside. When the Clintons, Cantwells, Liebermans and Feinsteins run for re-election, they must be opposed in the primaries by authentic progressives. Even if those progressives lose, but with a creditable showing, the "establishment" Democrats will nonetheless get the message. Next time you get a solicitation notice from the DNC or the Senate or Congressional Campaign Committees, tell them "no dice" unless they deal with the election fraud issue. Then tell them that instead of a contribution, you are purchasing Miller’s book and donating it to the local library.

As for the public, remember that more than half the public is awake, aware, and opposed to the Bush regime. Of these, a small but significant minority is convinced that election fraud is a serious problem. But that dissenting public lacks a voice, cohesion and leadership. This is a recipe for potentially sudden change: like fuel and oxygen, lacking the third necessity – heat of ignition. A message, from a Tom Paine or a Jefferson, or leadership from a Washington, a Gandhi, a Mandela or a Sakharov, can ignite the fire that will consume this evil regime. Or not. That depends on whether concerned citizens sit by and wait for others to act, or instead take some initiative and join the struggle – writing to Congress, talking to any and all associates that will listen and perhaps a few that won’t, contributing to alternative media, copying and distributing dissenting essays, and generally raising hell.

And finally, miracles: they are, by nature, unpredictable. Some possibilities: A few corporate and financial elites will finally come to realize that where Bush is leading, they don’t want to follow, and they will join the opposition. (There are a few intimations of this already). Similarly, perhaps a few journalists, and even some Republicans, will finally if belatedly decide that they would prefer not to live in a dictatorship. Bushenomics is bound to lead to an economic collapse that is certain to wake up the public. And even now, some state Attorney General or some District Attorney may be preparing an indictment for election fraud against an e-vote company executive that could break this conspiracy wide open.

But don’t wait for miracles to happen – make them happen.

If we are to take back our country, we must first take back our vote. Mark Crispin Miller’s book will tell you what has happened, how and why it has happened, and what must be done about it.

Will we, the people, take up the challenge? On that question rests the fate of our republic, of our liberties, and of "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He publishes the website, The Online Gadfly and co-edits the progressive website, The Crisis Papers. He is at work on a book, Conscience of a Progressive, which can be seen in-progress here. Send comments to: crisispapers@hotmail.com.

Comments Off on Evidence? We Don’t Want Your Stinkin’ Evidence! · Print ·

(No Ratings Yet)

Election Fraud Blog

Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006

CANDIDATES: WAIT TO CONCEDE!

A Full Recount Would Show that LÃ³pez Obrador Won Mexicoâ€™s Presidency by More than One Million Votes

The Tip of the Iceberg of the Crimes Committed by Mexican Electoral Authorities Is the Fraudulent Vote Count of 2006

By Al Giordano

Part II of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin

The Million-Vote Fraud

Guanajuato as Florida

Vote Shaving, â€œAnt Styleâ€

Do the Ballots Still Exist?

The Constitution Requires a Full Recount

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted — enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

Democratic Underground BOOKMARKS

2004 Election Theft.com: Take Action!

2004 Election Theft.com: State by State

2004 Election Theft.com: Exit Polls & Projections

2004 Election Theft.com: General

2004 ELECTION THEFT: GENERAL LINKS

Evidence? We Don’t Want Your Stinkin’ Evidence!

Daily News

Resources

Pages

Links

Archives

Categories

The Tip of the Iceberg of the Crimes Committed by Mexican Electoral Authorities Is the Fraudulent Vote Count of 2006

By Al Giordano Part II of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin

The Million-Vote Fraud

Guanajuato as Florida

Vote Shaving, â€œAnt Styleâ€

Do the Ballots Still Exist?

The Constitution Requires a Full Recount

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted — enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

2004 ELECTION THEFT: GENERAL LINKS

Log In

Daily News

Resources

Pages

Links

Archives

Categories

By Al Giordano

Part II of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin

Vote Shaving, â€œAnt Styleâ€