Is the Election About to Be Stolen in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Elsewhere?

Monday 03 November 2008
by: Cynthia Boaz, Ange-Marie Hancock, David McCuan, Mark Crispin Miller and Michael Nagler, t r u t h o u t Perspective

Calvin Thomas in West Virginia claims to have witnessed a touch-screen machine malfunction that assigned his vote to John McCain as opposed to Barack Obama - his intended choice.

Last Friday, a federal court judge in Cleveland, Ohio, ordered Michael Connell, an information-technology consultant to the McCain '08 campaign, to give a deposition in a court proceeding. Mr. Connell, whose firm, GovTech Solutions, built Ohio's 2004 election results computer network, was in a position to have knowledge about the alleged manipulation of electronic voting results in that presidential contest (a technique known as "flipping") in order to switch the winner in Ohio from Sen. John Kerry to President Bush. The deposition is scheduled to take place today, November 3, one day before the 2008 general election.

Connell is a former associate of Karl Rove, who is believed by those familiar with the events in question to have engaged in witness intimidation to prevent testimony about what happened in Ohio in 2004. They also believe that IT companies associated with the Republican Party have redeveloped the capacity to manipulate electronic voting results in Tuesday's election, both within Ohio and outside, including Pennsylvania and other key battleground states such as Colorado and New Mexico. One such firm, Triad GSI, is managing voter registration databases in 55 of Ohio's 88 counties and is hosting 25 of those databases.

All this has led to speculation that the McCain campaign's insistence that they can win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states, despite being (in some places, significantly) behind in most of the polls, could be prompted by having been informed about planned cyber interference with electronic voting results.

Click here to continue reading the disgusting details: http://www.truthout.org/110308R



Video the Vote 2008

Video the Vote is a national network of citizen journalists, independent filmmakers, and media professionals working together to document voter suppression and disenfranchisement.
LEARN MORE CHECK OUT OUR 2008 PROMO

10 Tips To Make Sure Your Vote Will Count

Update: This Video The Vote message's goal is to make sure there are 'No More Stolen Elections'. 110108

Oct 29th, 2008 by Eddie.

The map below shows which states allow early voting. If you can vote early, do it. If you live in a state that only allows early voting with an excuse, click on the map to get the info on early voting.





Use http://www.govote.org/ to find out your early voting location. GoVote.org also tells you what you need to bring to the polls in your state.

Not Voting Early?

Be prepared: download and “read” this comic book by Greg Palast and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The last few pages provide advice for people who are sure they’re registered and are being told they’re not. Please consider donating to the creators of this book.

In most states it is illegal to campaign (i.e. wear buttons, shirts, stickers, hats, etc) near a polling station. The McCain camp is counting on Obama supporters showing up with their t-shirts, getting turned away and not bothering to come back to vote. This is one of many tactics that will be used to suppress the vote - keeping lines long, not enough ballots, malfunctioning voting machines, etc."

Click here to read all of the tips to make sure your vote will count.


Don't Vote?

Palin’s Nightmare - A Shared Halloween Horror

By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine):

In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin told the crowd that an Obama presidency would present the specter of a socialist state in which fundamental American freedoms are undermined.

Does Sarah mean a state:

• That snatches its victims off the street, denies them all form of legal process and whisks them away to secret “blacksites” where they can be tortured using all the techniques described in Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon?
• That arrests and prosecutes its political adversaries for imaginary crimes so as to eliminate them from the running in election cycles in which they could do some damage?

Click through to watch the video and read the rest of the titillating questions for Governor Palin.

Passing Christianity This Way is Disrespectful

Says Abu Abdullah, a shop owner and resident of Fallujah of a coin handed out by a US Marine at a checkpoint into the city.

"At the western entrance to the Iraqi city of Fallujah Tuesday, Muamar Anad handed his residence badge to the U.S. Marines guarding the city. They checked to be sure that he was a city resident, and when they were done, Anad said, a Marine slipped a coin out of his pocket and put it in his hand.

Out of fear, he accepted it, Anad said. When he was inside the city, the college student said, he looked at one side of the coin. "Where will you spend eternity?" it asked.

He flipped it over, and on the other side it read, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16."

In interviews, residents of Fallujah repeated two words - "humiliation" and "weakness".
"Because we are weak this is happening," said Abu.

Do you remember being in history class and wondering 'why do I have to learn things we have already done!?' and the answer would come as 'So we don't repeat the mistakes of the past'? The stories of people's using this technique is littered through history. And while these Muslims may not be facing torture and death if they do not comply, the results will be the same. The scenery hasn't even changed that much, the Inquisition into Jerusalem comes to mind. However we do now have the education of history, a globe trotting population and a world wide web of information. One would think the folly of this tactic would be apparent. Torturing for information does not work, and neither does forcing a religion on a frightened, beleaguered people trying to rebuild their society.

Unfortunately, I have read and commented on one of our Presidential candidates enough to believe this is probably an activity that has backing within our government, no matter how they try to hide that fact. I blogged most poignantly on Mccain Disputed on 1999 Meeting, an article that details John Mccain's efforts on behalf of broadcaster Lowell "Bud" Paxson. Mr. Mccain pushed the line of ethics to influence the FCC on Paxson's behalf in a deal to purchase several local stations. The story is very interesting and concerning on several levels, however the story behind the story is a Hum Dinger. Mr. Paxson created the Christian based Pax TV. Despite it's annoyance at Mr. Mccain for his interference, the FCC did approve Mr. Paxson's request, with a stipulation:

"Five days after McCain's second letter, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to approve the deal. The commission also imposed a condition prohibiting Cornerstone from "proselytizing." Cornerstone would not agree to those terms, and the deal collapsed. "

Just to brush up:
proselytize \PROS-uh-luh-tyz\, intransitive verb:
1. To induce someone to convert to one's religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's institution, cause, or political party.

transitive verb: 1. To convert to some religion, system, opinion, or the like.

Proselytize is formed from proselyte, "a new convert, especially a convert to some religion or religious sect, or to some particular opinion, system, or party," from Greek proselutos, "a proselyte, a newcomer," from pros, "toward" + elutos, from eluthon, "I came."

Do you go that far, risking not only legal, but political career consequences, for a cause and plan of action you don't agree with? I fear a vote for Mr. Mccain will not only be a continuation of the current administration with a new bobblefigurehead, but simultaneously throw us backwards in time resurrecting time dishonored tactics and strategies as well as hurdle us into an equally well documented historical repeat of the past as a sad and avoidable future.

"Now we have this missionary way by these coins," he said. "We feel the Muslims are weak and we hope that we will reach a point when we are strong to let them know what is wrong and what is right. " Mohammed Jaber

The Crusaders Capture Jerusalem 1099

A much longer lasting and successful method was the Roman's, that allowed to a certain extent the people's they conquered to maintain their religions.

Here is why 'Middle of the Road' doesn't work either: "The people conquered by the Muslims usually faced a choice. They could denounce their religion and convert to Islam, pay a tax to continue practicing their beliefs, become a slave, or be executed. Most chose to convert. But many people paid the tax.
In time, the tax proved such a lucrative source of revenue that many Muslim rulers actually discouraged conversions. Those who paid the religious tax were called dhimmis. To Muslims, dhimmis were considered inferior and were treated as inferiors."

Presidential Election Process Flaw Illustrated

Here live and in color, (when I watched Newshour this evening) we find beautifully performed and clearly illustrated, the problem with the current presidential election process in America. There are only 2 parties acknowledged, and they make up their own rules about who gets the nomination and how, not the American people. Corporations and special interest groups are free to contribute and bring power to bear on decisions that are made for the country. As indicated below, the Democratic Party rules say that the delegates make the decision, and some 'Super' delegates even get more than the average leverage with their vote. Most Americans, if you ask them, confuse their rights to vote and peoples rights to run for president with democratic or republican party rules. These two parties can make up any rules they want regarding their candidates and their procedures and they do. These rules, as indicated below, do not ensure the ingrained American 'One person One vote', or 'Every Vote Counts'. It does ensure that numbers are crunched and manipulated until the favored candidate comes out on top no matter the actual number of American votes obtained. Does that sound right to you?

If you are a member of one of the parties, write, call or email to let them know you want actual member votes counted. Take the time to listen to some of the third party and independent candidates and their issues, if they are your issues give them some support! Most of all learn your rights. Learn that the D and R parties are not the only game in town, their candidates don't have to be your candidates, at the very least take the time to make the changes within your party to ensure your vote and every single vote is actually counted, and every single candidate has a chance to be seen, heard and on the ballot.

"REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, the race isn't remotely over. And with all due respect to Governor Romer, the key indicator that is the clear indication of Senator Clinton being the best candidate for the general election is that she is now, as of last night, ahead in the popular vote, when you count Florida and Michigan, which we absolutely need to make sure that we do, because the Democratic nominee should be selected by voters in all 50 states.
And at the end of the day, when we look through the Electoral College map, the way we add up to the 270 Electoral College votes that we need is by winning the states that are swing states and by getting ahead in the popular vote. And that's how we get electoral votes.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. More people have gone to the polls in America -- more Democrats have gone to the polls in America to cast votes for Hillary Clinton than for Senator Obama. And that is the measure that we should be using to decide who is our best foot forward in November.

GWEN IFILL: Governor Romer smiled when you said that.

ROY ROMER: It isn't the measure that we've all agreed on in the Democratic Party. The measure we've agreed on is, who has the most delegates?
And we ought not mislead the country. This is a contest that has rules, and the rules are, who has the most delegates? And those delegates have spoken." PBS

Obama Believes (in make believe clean kentucky coal)

"As Kentucky resident Erik Reese reported in Grist, studies in the state have found that children there suffer from 'an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and shortness of breath -- symptoms of something called blue baby syndrome -- that can all be traced back to sedimentation and dissolved minerals that have drained from mine sites into nearby streams. Long-term effects may include liver, kidney, and spleen failure, bone damage, and cancers of the digestive tract.'" Posted by Kate Sheppard at 4:32 AM on 06 May 2008

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

"Clean coal" typically refers to coal burned in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants with operational carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities to bury the plant's greenhouse-gas emissions underground. There are no IGCC plants in Kentucky, and no operational CCS facilities. Technically, there is no "clean Kentucky coal." Kate Sheppard

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

"The Obama campaign has made it clear that they want no new coal plants in the meantime. Jason Grumet, a top Obama energy adviser, told Grist that "the policies we have already articulated make [coal plants without CCS] economically unrealistic."Kate Sheppard

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

"[Obama] is confident... that his carbon cap program ... will make it absolutely ludicrous to even contemplate any type of coal, new coal, that is not 100 percent sequestered. ... if he is unable to get that carbon policy in place quickly, that he will do whatever is necessary to prevent the siting of a new generation of pulverized coal facilities, including setting [emission] standards that would be essentially a moratorium ... "Kate Sheppard

Obama Believes in Clean Kentucky Coal

Do YOU believe anything Obama says?

• NAFTA bad - To Americans, NAFTA good - To Canadians .
• Questionable relationship with Rezko verified but denied or forgotten
• His Spiritual leader, supporter of Wrights Church - until Wright hits Media, then disagrees with him and eventually disowns him.
• Tells rich white women poor folk in small towns only cling to guns and religion out of frustration, tells poor small town folk he used poor words/phrasing.
• Tells everyone 'no new coal' 'no dirty coal', then when primary hits says he is for coal despite there being none and little future for any.
  

We don't know enough about this man or the choices and decisions he would make to risk, in this current place in time, placing him in the highest office in the land. He has done nothing so far to relate that he is any different than any other politician, combine that with inexperience and it's a wonder he is on the ballot at all. In a small corner of my mind, the DNC knew this would be a blockbuster year for the D's, knew Clinton would be running, knew their key positions and most all other positions would be safe for the next term and so didn't do much more to foster other more experienced candidates. In this same corner lives the idea that the R's were just as aware of the blockbuster years coming for the D's, and so failed to foster any real candidate of their own instead choosing to try to hold the positions they had and work deals to keep some influence through the next administration.

• Do you want to stop coal until the technology is there?
• Do you want to fund solar power, with NO emissions?
• Do you want to decrease personal income tax (20-50% currently) and increase capital gains tax (10-18% currently)?
• Do you want to bust up the corporate headlock on our government?
• Do you want support to go into our government agencies and have TRUTH and FACTS and JUSTICE come out?
• Do you want to use negotiators and treaties with foreign governments and use the military to protect us AT HOME?
• Do you want penalties on US companies that ship jobs to other countries?
• Do you want warrantless searches and unlawful detainment ended?
• Do you want food, water and products to be inspected and safe?

There is only one way to ensure these things happen, and that is to vote for the man who has been trying to make these things happen for most of his life, virtually on his own. With Lincolnesque determination he has stood against lawsuits, name calling, media slander and 'The Man' and still he stands to fight the good fight. Really.

PolitiFact | A service of the Obama Campaign

A few weeks ago I added the Politifact gadgety thingy to my homepage, as I had come across an interesting article and took a few moments to look over a few of their headlines and thought it might be interesting. And in fact they are interesting, the site itself is well laid out, newsy and not extravagant. I've bookmarked a few of their articles, referred to them for info etc. It began to occur to me recently however, that the frequency of the name Obama over Clinton in the 6-7 headlines that come across the little reader was, well, getting more frequent. Over the next few days I kept my eye on those headlines and also began to notice they were leaning a bit to the Obama not Clinton. Questions and controversies from the headlines sure, but picked and parceled so the Clinton questions whether they turn out to be true or half or pants on fire, always seem to end up with Clinton looking bad, and Obama but not Clinton looking put out and wronged. Today I clicked on a headline from the RSS feed, Focus on the Facts I think, another article letting us know someone had maligned Obama, not Mrs Clinton. So I decided to head to their front page to see what that was like.

Obama word count 20
Clinton word count 9

Obama Pictures 7
Clinton Pictures 3

Rezko - 0

Needless to say, I am deleting the gadgety thingy as I don't need this sort of "Truth".


April 26, 2008 Update:

A couple of links to similar stories:

MediaMatters March 08 Why Politifact Really Emerged

Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul

Nader behind in fund-raising - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

"The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported this afternoon that he had raised $321,700 by the end of February, including $40,200 from his own pocket and a quarter of his total take from California residents."

Seems like prudent planning to me as, the real fight isn't likely to get under way for a few months. It also is a useful statement that speaks to the OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money being spent by the R & D parties at a time when we are all looking to tighten our belts if not being forced to do so. One shouldn't need to spend that kind of money to be a part of the process. Speaking of that, one certainly shouldn't be required to prove voter support based on dollars raised. The fact that the word democracy has become somehow interchangeable with capitalism is perverse. How is it that people who can't afford to send money to a campaign no longer have the right to support a candidate and have it count? (speaking of minimum donations per state to qualify for matching funds)


I went here for information on public funding of presidential elections, this is where the disappointment began. First is the fact that the only instances in which the word 'Independent' is used is when referring to expenditures not candidates. Each section stated time and again 'party candidate', 'major party candidates' as well a 'minor' and 'new' party candidates. No where is there a section for or direct information on 'Independent Candidates'. One small section titled 'Eligibility for Public Funds' finds itself parked fully halfway down this page titled 'Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure', carefully placed after 7 other sections that only refer to parties, committees and conventions. No where on this official government site for information does it make clear the standards and requirements for independent candidates. It does note that this page is intended for students, public information and reporters not candidates or committees, and that those groups should consult chapter 11 campaign laws. (no handy link provided)
This same government provided site finds a page titled 'Chapter 1: Primary Matching Funds' that notes "18. The requirement that candidates be affiliated with a political party has raised constitutional questions. Some have argued that it discriminates against independent candidates. For a discussion of this issue, see Chapter 2." Again, this is the only remark on independent candidates.

This 'Chapter 2' finds that "eligible candidates" are, by definition, the nominees "of a political party for President and Vice President."11 and that '11' is noted as 26 U.S.C. Sec.9002(4). It goes on:

Thus, on its face, the statute would appear to preclude public funding for independent candidates. On the other hand, Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16): a political party is "an association, committee, or organization which nominates a candidate for election to any Federal office whose name appears on the election ballot as the candidate of such association, committee, or organization."
Applying this definition in Advisory Opinion (AO) 1980-3, the Commission determined that the Citizens Party would qualify as a political party once it received verification from any state that a candidate would appear on the ballot as a nominee of the party. Subsequently, in AO 1980-56, the Commission concluded that Barry Commoner, the Citizens Party's Presidential nominee, could qualify for post-election funding as a new party candidate even if he was not listed as the party's nominee on some states' ballots. The Commission noted that Mr. Commoner was registered with the FEC as a candidate of the Citizens Party, and that the statute required only that the candidate (not the party) receive five percent of the vote to qualify for public funds. Similarly, in AO 1980-96, the Commission confirmed that the various organizations sponsoring John Anderson's candidacy would qualify as political parties for purposes of the public funding rules. Therefore, Mr. Anderson, as the nominee of these parties, could qualify for post-general election funding if he received more than five percent of the vote.12
Although the Anderson opinion did not address the issue, some Commissioners felt that he should have been declared eligible for funding as an independent candidate. Commissioners John Warren McGarry and Frank P. Reiche filed separate statements supporting such a finding. Mr. Reiche argued that the Anderson campaign was "dedicated to the election of an independent candidate" and should not have been required to "cloak [itself] with the appearance of political party formality" to qualify for public funding. Both Commissioners cited legislative history and the U.S. Circuit Court's opinion in Buckley v. Valeo to support their case. The Circuit Court stated that independent candidates should be subject to the same eligibility requirements as other candidates:
If these provisions would in fact operate to prevent independents from obtaining public funding, no matter what their showing, or if they would require that independents go to the trouble of creating election party machinery in order to obtain public funding, then they would raise serious constitutional questions. . . . But the statute does not command that interpretation.13

In 1981, the Commission formally asked Congress to consider clarifying whether an independent candidate could qualify for general election funding.14 In trying to find the verdict, opinion or decision I did find more questions :

3. In Buckley v. Valeo, the circuit court opinion suggested that failure to fund independent candidates could raise constitutional questions. 519 F.2d 821, 887 (D.C. Cir. 1975). The Supreme Court, in its subsequent decision, did not explicitly rule on this issue.
4. Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16).


Lets see if I can find more... Should it BE his hard????

The above article refers to "(The Commission's 1993 legislative recommendations are included in this report as Appendix 2.)" as a "more complete discussion", no where on that page does the word independent appear. On the public info page it was noted that they fall back to the definition of candidate found in 26 U..SC Sec.9002(4) please note this is different than the definition cite noted just above as 4.

H.R. 2817 in it's current incarnation's summary in part says "6/21/2007--Introduced.
Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to set forth specified expenditure limitations for House of Representatives general elections.
Permits additional expenditures by eligible major party, third party, and independent candidates."

Here are the details pertaining to independent candidates from the bill detail page:

`(2) ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE DESCRIBED-
`(A) IN GENERAL- In this section, an `eligible candidate' is a major party, third party, or independent candidate in a House of Representatives general election who presents to the Commission petitions containing the signatures of individuals eligible to vote in the election (as verified by the Commission), except that the highest funded candidate in the election may not be an eligible candidate for purposes of this section.

But this page really only refers to 'house of representatives general election' and only eludes to presidential elections when discussing numbers of backers compared to previous elections excluding presidential elections. This bill is still active, but I am not sure if it is pertinent to my search.

I've been working on this for hours now, with no real results. I'm going to give it a break now... if anyone can end my misery and send me a link to pertinent information regarding the current congressionally acceptable definition of "Independent Candidate" as it pertains to public campaign funding well....I'll visit your site three times a day until the elections are over.

What Independent Voters Want

• We’re tired of two parties whose priority is acquiring and maintaining power rather than serving the people who voted them into office.
  
• We have no problem voting for someone who has no chance of winning.
  
• We vote for the person and not the party.
  
• We seldom vote a straight, major-party ticket.
  
• We are not undecided. We have decided to be independent.
  
• We believe that a diversity of opinions stimulates healthy debate.
  
• We want dialogue, not diatribes.
  
• We want a government that follows the will of the people instead of one that manipulates it.
  
• We care as much about what happens on every other day as on Election Day.
  
• We want Ralph Nader to keep on running, even if we don’t vote for him. We probably need to apologize for that.
  
• We are anti-party, and yet we welcome third-party voters and candidates to join us under the independent umbrella, because they’re also outsiders.
  
• We believe the United States is better than this.

A pretty big whopper on it's own:

mw Says: "While people may actually like to think of themselves as “Independent”, what they do in a voting booth is one hell of a lot more important than what they tell pollsters about how how they label themselves."

When the parties take the measures they have to keep people off the ballot, leaving no other names there but their own we have little choice as to what we do in the voting booth save not voting at all. Looking at the falling numbers of voters, I'd say they have made one hell of a loud statement!

Another:

mw Says: "The way to read this, is that when an “independent” tells a pollster which way they “lean”, they are actually saying “this is how I vote”. "

What part of the writers statement didn't you understand? "nor are we “party-leaning.” The polls you are referring to do not have real questions and a real category for people who are not of one party or the other, in order to give indication of our issues we answer in the manner which will get our points across. It is the pollsters and people like you that push us into a lean, that force us into your mold of leaners.

So here is OUR definition, every person on your census that hasn't registered yet to vote, every person who has registered and hasn't recently voted, every person who recently removed themselves from the R or the D party and every single person who votes on issues not party affiliation, THOSE people are your Independents. That is how many, exactly, you need to consider Independent Voters.

Mccain Closer to Bush than Democrats

"On the other hand, McCain has failed to release any clear global warming policy, and his economic and health care plans are designed for the benefit of millionaires and giant corporations at the expense of everyone else. However, McCain's people have made it clear he does have one bedrock principle when it comes to global warming policy: 'He wants to see the use of nukes.'"

Defining 'Change': Ralph Nader about his Presidential platform on Energy and the Environment

An interview with Ralph Nader about his Presidential platform on Energy and the Environment
By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist Feature 19 Mar 2008:

"Going forward, what sets your environmental platform apart from the other candidates'?


I'm basically promoting a massive conversion from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a carbohydrate-based economy. I'm not talking about corn ethanol, which has a very poor net energy- and water-usage characteristic. I'm talking about industrial hemp. I'm talking about plant life that can be efficiently converted to fuel -- like sugar cane, agricultural waste, cellulosic grasses, and certain kinds of biomass that can be grown with a spectacular ratio of energy inputs to outputs. I'm talking about a very fundamental remodeling of our economy -- a conversion from industrial-age, 19th-century technologies like the internal combustion engine to renewable, sustainable technologies of efficiency and production. We should have vehicles that get well over 100 miles per gallon. As Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken have shown, we can create far greater efficiencies in the use of our natural resources, whether it's copper, iron, oil, gas, timber, you name it."


These are the kind of bold words that define the kind of change we as a nation are looking for. We've all known for a long time now that someone is going to need step up and admit out loud and accept responsibility for initiating what must be done. It is a daunting task, but one that will reap the best benefits for our country's overall health, sustainability and national morale.
The major corporations that could have been, over the past 10 years or so, preparing for this day by developing many already proven technologies have instead spent their time purposefully not doing this sometimes going so far as to purchase patents just to set them on shelves. There is still time for these companies to jump on board, if not make way for the new companies willing to fill the need. The money will shift, there will be new 'major corporations', the jobs will remain and life in the US will move along without them, a victim of the very consumer driven economy they helped to create.

Please click on the title to read the complete interview with Mr. Nader

03/20/08 EDIT
A couple of links that will not only support Ralph's plan, but offer interactive models and scenarios that you can check out yourself :

http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/

http://www.climate.yale.edu/seeforyourself/

Telecom Money in Congress

"Lawmakers who favor granting immunity to telecom companies for participating in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program receive more money from the telecom industry than those who oppose immunity. That's the finding from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington-based organization that researches money's influence on politics. This article was originally published in Capital Eye, the money-in-politics newsletter of CRP, and is reprinted with permission. "

"The 68 senators who voted to grant immunity collected an average of $21,200 from telephone utility companies, compared to $13,000 collected by the 29 who voted 'no' collected an average of $13,000."

"In 2007, the telephone utility industry spent at least $31.4 million lobbying Congress."

Phone Companies Want to Be Off the Hook
By Lindsay Renick Mayer"


And Then:

Should telecommunication companies receive retroactive immunity for their role in helping the government eavesdrop on American phone calls and e-mails? As Congress and President Bush duel over the answer to that question, NOW on PBS interviews a whistleblower with exclusive insight into the role played by one of those companies.Klein tells David Brancaccio about the "secret room" set up by the National Security Agency inside his AT&T office in San Francisco. He also describes in remarkable detail—with documents to back him up—how wires were split and extra equipment was brought in to essentially suck up and store emails from all over the country. Klein claims this activity is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, yet the White House continues to press Congress not only for authorization to continue surveillance but also for legal immunity for cooperating telecom companies.

Program Resources» Video»Audio [mp3, 48kbps]:Stream, Download, Podcast »Print»
Related Links:
Wired: Whistle-Blower's Evidence, UncutWired: Wiretap Whistle-Blower's Account [pdf]Wired: Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room
CNN: House Defies Bush on Surveillance Bill

More From NOW: Wiretap Whistleblower, Candidate Positions on Surveillance, Telecom Money in Congress, Protecting Your Privacy, Feedback Forum, Transcript -->
Related Reports: For Your Eyes OnlyAbout Mark Klein, Breaking the Story
Topic Search: Topic Search: Civil Liberties & Technology

Nader means Change - For Real

Nader will run for president

Feb 24: Ralph Nader announces his third bid for the White House while speaking with NBC’s Tim Russert of “Meet the Press”.

Why Not? Hillary grew up as a Corporate attorney for WalMart of all places, WALMART! Yeah yeah, working for the poor's favorite store but look at what Walmart has done from a legal, or attorney's view point! If any corporation is going to be able to take advantage of her Walmart will be the one. Walmart has one of the worst records for a company it's size as far as it's employees are concerned, you know, The People. She is a corporate attorney.

Why Not? Barack grew up in Hawaii. So what you say? Lovely people with values. Yes, except Barack didn't spend much time with The People. He lived in a large expensive house and went to private schools. There is a huge wasteland of toxic goo under the Great Lakes causing low birth weights and excessive still births in the Chicago area...gosh I wonder why we haven't heard more about this? Personal gain trumps The People I guess.

Why Not? John tells us he is disgusted by the status quo in campaigning, lobbyists are bad he says. But only if he doesn't need a private jet ride somewhere I suppose. That makes him an ok guy, doesn't it? It was only PAX tv I guess, they are religious how can that be bad? Well, when the owner of Pax (before it was Pax quite yet, it was Paxon Communications then) was buying up all of the local stations (hey, isn't there an FCC rule about that?) he could get his hands on, he ran into a little trouble. He asked his friend John (in person, turns out despite John's denial http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022308C.shtml ) to write a letter to the FCC on his behalf. Not only did John do this for him, he did it twice, the second to the employees as opposed to the head when his initial letter to him got no response. The head of the agency wrote back to John letting him know he had crossed the line and his letter was "highly unusual". A subsequent review by the FCC General Counsel's Office determined that McCain had violated the commission's ex parte rules. But here is the kicker, the part we should all be paying attention to: Five days after McCain's second letter, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to approve the deal. The commission also imposed a condition prohibiting Cornerstone from "proselytizing." Cornerstone would not agree to those terms, and the deal collapsed.

proselytize \PROS-uh-luh-tyz\, intransitive verb:

1. To induce someone to convert to one's religious faith.2. To induce someone to join one's institution, cause, or political party.

transitive verb: 1. To convert to some religion, system, opinion, or the like.

Proselytize is formed from proselyte, "a new convert, especially a convert to some religion or religious sect, or to some particular opinion, system, or party,"

from Greek proselutos, "a proselyte, a newcomer," from pros, "toward" + elutos, from eluthon, "I came."

If the word of the day is "CHANGE" there is no better way to describe what Nader can do for us!
Oh, you didn't really mean change? You meant to just lean a little, no REAL change is needed... You are ok with the way things are going? You have accepted that hillary barack and john are really different enough? Click on the Photo caption to listen to what Nader has to say.

Looking for change? Really?

Democracy not = to Capitalism

Democracy is not the same as Capitalism

Democracy
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary

1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
[French démocratie, from Late Latin dēmocratia, from Greek dēmokratiā : dēmos, people; see dā- in Indo-European roots + -kratiā, -cracy.]
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


Capitalism
cap·i·tal·ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

[Origin: 1850–55; capital1 + -ism]
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary


n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.


Yet we do seem to have merged the two into some abhorrent mutant. The point of democracy is to level the playing field, everyone has a voice. Today it seems, more than ever, only people with money have a voice. Many a public policy has been made based on the popularity of an issue or item and this information is based on dollars spent. Many people follow the the two major political party's lead simply because they believe that if they raise that kind of money, many people must agree with them, they can't all be wrong. In basis, this theory will hold a little water, but in fact it will sink in the end as just a few very wealthy people (relatively) contribute huge amounts of cash.

I have a bit of renewed hope with the onset of the internet, we have our voices back. But I am sure there were people just as revitalized by the printing press, the radio and the television. Those mediums did do a lot to bring information to the masses, from hometown to around the world and so did do a lot to raise our voices. The state of those mediums today, all in the hands of the wealthy few twisting, slanting and outright banning certain topics, well... lets just try to get as much from this new medium while it is in our hands.

Recently I went in search of online campaigns for the 2008 US presidential elections. What I found was dismal. The 2 major party's sites were of course flashy, and state of the art but were still really just giant commercials. Not very connected to the people they should have been addressing. The other parties, what I found of them online, were at the bottom of a very deep chasm if the D&R's were on the hill. The Green party's news feed hadn't been updated since dec7'07, spelling errors were noted by me and that's saying something! Ad promo's were dated 2006, including audio and video selections. Nothing from '07/'08 at all. It was hard to find the current candidates and the party seemed very unorganized. Their principals are something I find a lot of people are interested in but with the current mindset of "capimocracy", without the trappings the big money buys, people think there can't be many other people that agree with them, they must be wrong and so am I. In a discussion on the topic with a friend a few days ago, that was the answer he gave. "If people agreed they would put their money behind it".

My folks are on a fixed income, they did a little saving and are pretty well off in retirement however their idea of a donation to the party is about $25. My sister works in health care and has children/grandchildren, though she was recently able to become a homeowner in lieu of a renter she doesn't have it in her budget to make more than a $10-$20 donation. I have another sister who is recently divorced after 15 years and while she was able to head back to school and start a new career she is back in a renting situation and also couldn't afford to donate much more than $50-$100. My friend has 4 children, last year she was in a position to start a business and build for her family's future. She took a huge chance and did a great job, until flooding closed her down for 2 months. One week or maybe even two closed would have been hard but recoverable, 2 months were not. She lost her business and in course her home. She is now an hourly employee and a renter. She cannot afford to donate anything to a political party. Another friend attends a church for recovering addicts. Most have just come from stints in rehab, or are children of addicted parents. Most are unemployed all are renters, mostly of a room in someone else's home. My next door neighbor was injured on the job. He was unable to return to work. He applied for various programs to assist him in keeping a roof over his families head and food in their stomachs. Unemployment runs out, L&I disputes and meetings and hearings go on forever. He lives with his parents now. He cannot afford to donate to a political party this year.

These are the good stories. There are plenty of people who never were as lucky as these, and won't be in the future. There are plenty of good people in circumstances that don't allow them to donate hard earned money to make their valid, hard earned opinions known. Because they can't afford it, does that make them less worthy of a vote? Abraham Lincoln, while his family began relatively affluent, ultimately lived on public land after the death of his mother and issues with land ownership. I doubt he would have had money to spare for a donation to a political party in those days, do you think his opinions were invalid because he didn't have extra cash? Really?


I'm all for capitalism, don't get me wrong. It is not the same as democracy, it should not be mixed up in democracy. If you tend to think, as the mainstream (media) would have you think, that people who make money are smarter and so their votes are of higher quality then please read the above again. We have the opportunity, perhaps only for a time, to take control and have our voices heard regardless of our ability to pay! Set aside time each day to do a little research on your politicians, local and federal. Spend a little more time writing down your thoughts opinions and ideas. Take just a few more moments to make contact with other people to discuss the issues. Donate some time (perhaps taken from watching commercial laden television, trying to convince you your life is not complete unless you have a summer home, or a second car or? requiring you to work more and spend less time at home with family and on issues that effect your family) to spread the word, at meetings and on the internet. Your life is unique, your opinion counts, make sure you are heard!

Isaiah 1:15

One of the questions in a survey taken recently gave me a rare opportunity to try to summarize the major difference for me between the Democrat and Republican parties. The biggest difference for me has long been the R's reluctance and even refusal to develop and fund social programs. A quick look at history, even from an under-educated point of view, tells us that most countries/empires fall to civil unrest stemming from vast gaps in social status. A few haves controlling the mostly have-nots. Even when the have-nots did not openly rebel, low morale bred lack of support in times of national need leading to the downfall of many civilizations.In the few moments I took to ponder my answer for the survey, I considered how religion has been playing it's role in the last few presidential elections. How it seems the R's have claimed religion as theirs. How this seems strange to me, the R's have never been the 'go to guys' in my mind for 'turning the other cheek' or 'forgiving one's trespass'. Then I suddenly had my one word answer. The biggest difference between the parties, for me, is Charity.

I had long been perplexed at governments failure to learn from the past, especially since it has repeated so many times, but now found myself appalled with the realization that so many R's wave the Christian Banner without representing main Christian values. Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers for the injustice. He gave aid and comfort to those others would not approach. I was reminded of Isaiah recently and the following seems almost to have been written in explanation of my issue with the R's waving the Christian flag:

Isaiah 15
9 When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!
16
Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil;
17
learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan's plea, defend the widow.
18
Come now, let us set things right, says the LORD: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be crimson red, they may become white as wool.
19
If you are willing, and obey, you shall eat the good things of the land;
20
But if you refuse and resist, the sword shall consume you: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken!
21
10 How has she turned adulteress, the faithful city, so upright! Justice used to lodge within her, but now, murderers.
22
Your silver is turned to dross, your wine is mixed with water.
23
Your princes are rebels and comrades of thieves; Each one of them loves a bribe and looks for gifts. The fatherless they defend not, and the widow's plea does not reach them.
24
Now, therefore, says the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: Ah! I will take vengeance on my foes and fully repay my enemies!
25
I will turn my hand against you, and refine your dross in the furnace, removing all your alloy.
26
I will restore your judges as at first, and your counselors as in the beginning; After that you shall be called city of justice, faithful city.
27
11 Zion shall be redeemed by judgment, and her repentant ones by justice.

I'm not a religious person, I'm barely spiritual, and don't believe religion has a place in politics especially US politics. We have a near perfect list of rules to work with that make it so whatever your religion we can live together fairly and safely with the same opportunity. If you fly a religious banner at me I'm going to expect you to live up to your claim, and R's, you have a bit of work to do.

US Presidency (Minimum Investment $50k)

Did you ever wonder why more people don't run for president? I'm sure you are thinking "It's probably the money", and for the most part you would be right. But we are a rich country bred with loud voices, so there has to be more than a couple dozen, right?
Sure! But you wouldn't really know it by looking. Not even if you type "all candidates" or "presidential candidates" into a search bar. I've clicked through to dozens of sites, from 'candidate matchmakers' to video lists of debates so far and what I have found is that without 13 years of internet research behind me I would have quite a time finding candidates from any other party aside from the D's and R's.

To my ultimate disgust, even turning to the usa.gov search site nets me only "This list includes active campaigns that have raised or spent $50,000 or more, from sources other than the candidate himself or herself. " and promptly goes on to list and link to R and D candidates ONLY! It does note that over 1000 people have filed a Statement of Candidacy and/or Statement of Organization and provides a link to a listing (http://www.fec.gov/press/press.shtml) which simply leads to the general press page, where you must begin the search all over again, as there is no simple link to such a listing on the page. I never did find the list, and sent off an email to the noted address requesting help. (mailto:info@fec.gov) I did finally find what appears to be a comprehensive listing however, it is a wikipedia listing. I have never found any problems with the site, however I am aware that many others have, so even this information may be slanted/tainted/incorrect.

So apparently, there is a cost or a "Minimum Investment" required to even be recognized by the government as an actual candidate. Did I mention disgusted?

There is definitely a problem here! I went in search of some of the other candidates web sites, and mostly what I find is that elections haven't kept up with technology outside of the R&D parties. Simple websites with spelling errors and few if any recent updates, and no real online campaigns to speak of. I did come across one, ONE, exciting professional video for the Green party. It turned out to be from and for another country. Hopefully things will pick up as the election looms, and future elections will take advantage of the internet. I also hope that the rules will be changed to address the situation, that at least the usa.gov search site can contain an easily accessed list of ALL of the declared candidates.

I will list a few websites here for some of the other parties, but please send a request email to info@fec.gov for the link to a full listing of all declared candidates. This way maybe they will make the information more accessible in the future.


Green Party Candidate listing, last updated 12/17/07
Nader 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee
Libertarian Candidates
Constitution Party though I found no candidates there.
Independents A wiki list.

EDIT: I went in search of an email address or blog for Jon Stewart or the daily show in hopes of adding my thoughts on this matter there. Sadly, I found the only candidates and parties featured were the R&D's..... C'mon Jon!

EDIT: 3/12/08 With so many joking about throwing their hats in the ring lately, I decided to renew my search for a comprehensive listing of properly declared candidates. I returned to the FEC site and began looking for the list. The cited page, as noted previously, did not have the list nor a direct link to the list. I entered 'all candidates' into the site search bar and clicked on the only relevant result, 'presidential campaign finance'. A nifty looking interactive US map graphic appears whereby hovering over a circle on the map pulls up the $ spent by that state. A very handy listing of "All Candidates" is provided on the left. It is summarized at the top into Democrat and Republican totals, and goes on to list many of the R&D candidates with their respective dollar amounts. Only R&D parties are included and no independent candidate is listed. I went back to the search results and combed over them again, no luck. It was then that I noticed, near the bottom of the page just above the footer links and legal language, 3 links of which one looked promising! "All Candidates, Current Presidential Filings" Yippee! I'd found it! I placed my cursor over the link preparing to click when I noticed it...the status bar announcing my intended destination... it was not an FEC.GOV address. It was not a .GOV address at all, it was a .COM address. By default I tell myself this must have been an 'ad by google' block, but how could that be on the fec.gov site? I looked again, no, no google logo..no logo at all. I hovered over the other 2 options I'd found lurking at the bottom of that fec.gov search result page, "Receipts of 2008 Presidential Campaign" indeed an fec.gov link. And "Presidential Campaign Finance Summaries: Current and Historical" also another fec.gov link. So, can ANYONE explain to me why the Federal Election Committee cannot or will not post a full listing of Presidential Candidates thus far for the 2008 election? Further, will anyone be able to explain why this .COM site bears the FEC seal?

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M2/ Incidentally, the site is titled a bit differently than the link: "Selected" Presidential Reports for the 2008 February Monthly and contains only 18 names. By poking around on this site, I was able to find a larger if not updated listing of candidates by searching for 2008 financial information: http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/ Again, why is this information being made available through a .COM site!

More info about the site, but please note that a search for "what is nictusa.com" pulled no real results...how very mysterious.. http://ww.quantcast.com/nictusa.com

Then by accident I found more information... it's actually NIC Inc. aka Nicusa.com aka Nictusa.com, the people behind egovernment! http://www.nicusa.com/html/ Huh?!! On the face of it I'm not happy....Stay tuned...

Edit 03/23/08 Thankfully and finally, Grist.org and Glassbooth.org have added an independent/3rd party to their listings! I hope I find more and more instances like this. Cheers guys!

Edwards Bid shows Poverty not Big Campaign Theme

By Matthew Bigg
ATLANTA (Reuters) - "The inability of John Edwards to gain traction in his bid for the U.S. Democratic presidential nomination indicates that fighting poverty in America has limited appeal for voters.
Edwards told audiences it was 'the issue of my life.' But he dropped out of the race on Wednesday because too few responded to his anger at inequality, his heart-rending stories of suffering and his passion about combating corporate greed."

NPR: Senate Democrats Have Plans for Stimulus Package

I've sat staring at the walls for about 10 minutes now trying to compose my thoughts on this subject. There is so much I don't know about the impact this or that strategy may have, all that I 'do' have to draw on is the experience that is my life and the scant amount of common sense allotted me. I have fleeting thoughts about the direness of the situation, they tend toward "we've been living in the bubble, we were fine before the bubble, the bubble was great while it lasted". I back pedal toward.. and here is where it gets fuzzy...toward what? Staying the course? Maintain the status quo? No...common sense interjects, values are too high, quality is too low. Compensation for value is out of whack. Over consumption and waste are evidence. There needs to be a stimulus package, but not only for the reasons of impending doom, but for the morale of the nation after what feels like a 10 year beat down. But I believe it should be targeted toward the food stamp and UE benefits, the individual compensations and small business targeted tax relief and backing start up costs for small business only. Large multi-national corporations that have benefited from the 'Bubble' should take the bonus with thanks and get back to business as usual, as in 'Pre-Bubble' usual.

NPR: Senate Democrats Have Plans for Stimulus Package


Q&A: What's in the Tentative Stimulus Deal?
by Heidi Glenn

It Bears Repeating

People against efforts to improve our environment have long perplexed me. It's not that I don't understand that some people are more concerned with personal gain, I think it may be that I don't understand how a person could put a price on their own and their families lives. Have they convinced themselves that they breath somehow cleaner air? That their food is grown in magically pure soil? Are their cows of a level they can move away from the grass accidentally sprayed with this or that toxin by a stray strong wind?

I've come to understand, if not accept, that it all comes down to money. I still don't get it.
If your town's waterfront (usually the highest income producing area in town if there is one) floods, even by a few inches, that is economic disaster. No supplies, no jobs, no taxes and no revenues.
If your town's farmlands are struck by drought, economic disaster. No food, no jobs, no taxes and no revenues.
If your town is struck by heat/cold wave and aging power grids fail.....
Now realize this is happening around the world...

Now no one cares about the newest car model, or fashion lines or football scores or....
No one is spending any money on anything except food shelter and protection...

There is money to be made in this endeavor, just like any other thing. Climb on board now, be a pioneer, those guys always make a ton of dough!
And if we are wrong, the worst thing that happens is we have clean air to breath, water to drink and food to eat

Please take 15 minutes to watch the 2 videos below
And then take 5 minutes to forward or post it.






Saturday January 12, 2008 - 01:37am (PST)

Speaking of China

Ever wonder who is funding the recent (relatively) industrial and economic reform in China? It's pretty clear they aren't going to be very grateful for it, nor should they be. It doesn't take a super computer to predict the outcome of this particular model.
American Imports, Chinese Deaths: The human cost of doing business
Their lungs shut down, their kidneys fail, they lose fingers, limbs, all so Americans are guaranteed an unfettered flow of cut-rate merchandise.

Meet Wei Chaihua - he's dying of silicosis.

By Loretta Tofani Special to The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 10/21/2007 01:06:01 PM MDT

GUANGZHOU, China - The patients arrive every day in Chinese hospitals with disabling and fatal diseases acquired while making products for America. On the sixth floor of the Guangzhou Occupational Disease and Prevention Hospital, Wei Chaihua, 44, sits on his iron-rail bed, tethered to an oxygen tank. He is dying of the lung disease silicosis, a result of making Char-Broil gas stoves sold in Utah and throughout the U.S. Down the hall, He Yuyun, 36, who for years brushed America's furniture with paint containing benzene and other solvents, receives treatment for myelodysplastic anemia, a precursor to leukemia.
In another room rests Xiang Zhiqing, 39, her hair falling out and her kidneys beginning to fail from prolonged exposure to cadmium, which she placed in batteries sent to the U.S. "Do people in your country handle cadmium while they make batteries?" Xiang asks. "Do they also die from this?" 'Big problem for Americans': With each new report of lead detected on a made-in-China toy, Americans express outrage: These toys could poison children. But Chinese workers making the toys - and countless other products for America - touch and inhale carcinogenic materials every day, all day long. Benzene. Lead. Cadmium. Toluene. Nickel. Mercury. Many are dying. They have fatal occupational diseases.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7239727

Sunday October 21, 2007 - 08:16pm (PDT)