Saturday, January 12, 2008

Up To $52 Million, no bid Contract; John Ashcroft


Ashcroft's Sweet Deal
Bastard steals $50M of your taxes

Link

Excerpt:

It should be obvious that taking hugely lucrative no-bid contracts from the agency
you used to head is not the best way to comport yourself after a career in public service.
John Ashcroft (R-Fascist) should know better, though he apparently doesn't.

He's born again, so it doesn't matter what he does now, he is ill gong to heaven, unless they won;'t let him bring all his money, thus disproving the Evangeelcal propserity doctrine.

Riches are raining down on his consulting firm, the Ashcroft Group, thanks to a former
Justice Department associate. The group has been handed a contract worth between
$28-million and $52-million by Christopher Christie, the top federal prosecutor in
New Jersey - a man who used to work for Ashcroft. There was no competitive bidding
for this well-compensated work and, according to the New York Whore Times, Christie
has been using his position to direct similar arrangements to other connected Fascists.

Ashcroft's contract has eye-popping numbers. For the sum of $750,000 per month plus between $150,000 and $250,000 per month in expenses, his consulting group will monitor an out-of-court settlement the Justice Department reached with Zimmer Holdings, a medical
supply company in Indiana. That company was accused of paying kickbacks to doctors who used their knee and hip implants.

What's worse than a no-bid contract to a close friend? They write a "no performance" clause into the contract.

Imagine that - they sign a $50M contract for Ashcroft to "monitor" government payouts, but Ashcroft gets paid even if Ashcroft sits home and plays with himself the whole time.

This is why rich Republicans get into politics - to rape the Treasury and play with themselves.

Good One, Bwaahahaha

Wonder what Ashcroft (whom, I believe, saw himself as the next J. Edgar, since he was getting dirt on everyone since shorty after he became AG, thanks to Karl Rove), has on Bush or the new AG or high profile Dems for that matter

Why the hell are we, the people, allowing for these idiotic no-bid contracts in the first place?

TAX RESISTANCE! There has been more than enough to put a stop payment on your taxes this year. Do you honestly want to be a war criminal? Do your loyalties lie with the people and their constitution or Bush an his dIck

Besides, War Tax Resistance is a very old American tradition and tax resistance can be used to rectify many god-awful policies, which shared the constitution and lead us into evil, other than war,


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

The Coporate News Celebs got kicked to the curb in NH

It still has not dawned on the MSN/Cabal News Cluckers that while Hillary won over Obama, but not over Obama/Edwards, whom, exactly, the losers really are. That's because the real loser is them, again

Actually, one of our posters, who was posting for another blog, Lantern Brigade, I believe it was, suggested a little civil disobedience directed at pollsters in 2004. He thinks it is a good thing when pundits are made to look like the over-paid nitwits they are. Then maybe people will start thinking for themselves and stop the "sheeple brigade" I can't say that I disagree at this point. But let's get those paper ballots for everyone now.


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Navy Caught Lying About Iranian Rubber Ducky Affair

Taped Voices May Not Have Come From Iranian Boats

Link

Excerpt:
Just two days after the U.S. Navy released the eerie video of Iranian speedboats swarming
around American warships, which featured a chilling threat in English, the Navy is now
saying that the voice on the tape could have come from the shore or from another ship.

Or it could've come from the US Navy, trying to provoke an attack.

Or anyone whose wet dreams are all about war with Iran. It wouldn't be to difficult to paint those speed boats with Iranian colors and put anyone on-board. CIA? Israelis? This is only the beginning.

The near-clash occurred over the weekend in the Strait of Hormuz. On the U.S. recording,
a voice can be heard saying to the Americans, "I am coming to you. You will explode
after a few minutes."

The Navy never said where the voices came from, but many were left with the impression
they had come from the speedboats because of the way the Navy footage was edited.

So - they got caught lying.
I'm shocked that Republicans would lie to start a war - aren't you?

I wouldn't be surprised if a Democrat lied to start a war (Gulf Of Tonkin?). Wouldn't be surprised if either party lied to keep a war going so the M-I-C Beast can be fed.

Today, the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified that
the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else.

So why didn't you tell the truth in the first place?
Why did you wait until after you were caught to give us the real facts?

Confusion, I would imagine. Nevertheless, only the USN has bucked Junior and Cheney on their plans to agitate and aggravate the Iranian government into making a big mistake. The important thing is, our sailors didn't fire. Admiral Fallon is watching this like a hawk.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bob Parry Blasts Hillary, upsetting BartCop terribly

If this campaign turns out to be about race or womens' rights instead of our dying country and the miserable murderers who have been running things for the last 7 years, I predict that the USA is over and done....and I'm probably not gonna give a damn.

Anyone who runs for president in America had damned well be ready for insults and worse, fair or unfair. People wanting Americans to give them power need to stop whining, no matter who they are. American, of all stripes, colors, socio-economic backgrounds and situations and/ or gender all have had there fair share of unfair treatment, insults and put-downs. We are just everyday people. If we can handle it, our president should be able to.

Please, No More Whining, Millionaire Presidential candidates.

Oh, by the way, Barak, Hillary, wait until the barbarians on the Right get hold of you.

Many people who know the Clintons insist that the power couple truly wants what’s best for the American people. It’s just that too often their political needs or their personal foibles overwhelm their responsibility to the public interest.

But rarely could the Clintons’ determination to get their way be more detrimental to both the Democratic Party and the United States than if Hillary Clinton continues to play the "gender card" on behalf of her presidential campaign, especially in what is shaping up as a two-person race against an African-American.

Instead of an inspiring campaign between two trail-blazing politicians, the race could degenerate into a spasm of “identity politics” in which two groups – women and blacks – compete over who has been more unfairly repressed.

To this point, Sen. Barack Obama has avoided playing the "race card," favoring uplifting rhetoric about “change” that is underscored – but not overwhelmed – by the fact that he is the first African-American to be given a serious shot at winning the White House.

By contrast, over the past few months, whenever the going has gotten tough, Sen. Clinton has responded with references to herself as an embattled woman facing unfair treatment at the hands of men.

On Nov. 1, 2007, after one bruising Democratic debate, Clinton returned to her alma mater, Wellesley College, and declared that “in so many ways, this all women’s college prepared me to compete in the all boys’ club of presidential politics.”

Clinton then urged Wellesley students to help her win the presidency. “We’re ready to shatter that highest glass ceiling,” Clinton said. [NYT, Nov. 2, 2007]

Similarly, after losing the Iowa caucuses to Obama, Clinton and her supporters appealed to women to rally behind one of their own and to take a stand against sexist oppression.

In a New York Times op-ed, feminist Gloria Steinem went so far as to argue that American women have suffered more political and economic discrimination than American black men.

“Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any woman (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter),” Steinem wrote. [NYT, Jan. 8, 2008]

Steinam is right on the mark about this, though what iit has to do with this all important election, I don't know.

A Bitter Debate

Steinem’s historical arguments threw down a gauntlet to a bitter debate over who’s the bigger victim, blacks or women.

American blacks could reasonably cite their experience with generations of slavery followed by generations of brutal segregation in making the case that giving black men the vote after the Civil War was relatively meaningless.

It was not until the 1960s, when Congress passed the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights laws, that the United States began protecting the franchise of African-Americans across the South, where Jim Crow laws and lynchings had long held blacks down.

But blacks are still disenfranchised through tactics like those used in Florida during Election 2000 when felon purges disqualified hundreds (possibly thousands) of legitimate African-American voters. To this day, Washington D.C.’s heavily black population is denied representation in Congress.

Though dubious and even offensive, Steinem's arguments about the supposed advantages of being a black man in America were embraced by many supporters of Hillary Clinton as New Hampshire voters headed to the polls. Already, Sen. Clinton had set the stage for a women’s power rebound in the first-in-the-nation primary.

In the days after her Iowa defeat, Clinton had won sympathy from some women who were upset that the male-dominated news media was dismissing her as a viable candidate, what could be called the "Chris Matthews factor."

Then, at a Jan. 5 debate moderated by ABC’s Charles Gibson, Clinton was asked why many voters found her unlikable. “Well, that hurts my feelings,” she responded. “I don’t think I’m so bad.”

Obama didn’t help himself either with what sounded like a graceless reaction to the question. “You’re likable enough, Hillary,” he said, causing even some of his supporters to wince.

Then, on Jan. 7, a day before the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Clinton’s voice cracked when responding to a question about how she managed to hold up during the grueling campaign.

“It’s not easy, it’s not easy,” Clinton responded slowly in a softer voice than she normally uses. “I couldn’t do it if I did not passionately believe it was the right thing to do. It’s very personal to me.”

As her eyes grew moist, she added, “You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. It’s about our country, it’s about our kids’ future.”

Then, seamlessly, in the same soft voice, she shifted into political attack mode: “Some of us are right, some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we’ll do on day one and some of us don’t”

Her wet-eyed moment – a woman daring to show her vulnerable side – immediately became a campaign turning point.

‘Iron My Shirts’

The feminist-solidarity vote for Hillary Clinton got another boost during a final speech in Salem, New Hampshire, when two young men began heckling her with the sexist chant, “Iron my shirts!”

Upon hearing the obnoxious chant, Clinton called for the lights in the auditorium to be turned up. Then, seeing the two young men near the front of the audience, she said, “Oh, the remnants of sexism alive and well.”

As security guards escorted the pair from the auditorium, Clinton transformed the incident into a case study of how men oppress women: “As I think has just been abundantly demonstrated, I am also running to break through the highest and hardest glass ceiling.”

Clinton’s comments drew a standing ovation from the crowd and widespread media attention on New Hampshire’s news shows.

One source inside the Clinton camp said the “iron my shirts” comment angered and energized women in particular, while Clinton's tearing up played well with men who suddenly saw her as more human and more appealing.

Though her deft reaction to the “iron my shirts” taunt may have helped her politically, her depiction of it as an example of male oppression holding her down would appear to be a gross exaggeration.

The two hecklers were later identified as Nick Gemelli and Adolfo Gonzalez Jr. [See New York Daily News’ blog.] They are associated with Toucher & Rich, a white-guy-oriented talk show on Boston’s WBCN radio that prides itself in broadcasting content intended for “immature audiences.”

On Jan. 9, the day after Clinton's upset victory in the New Hampshire primary, the show’s host opened by running down the roster of participants and referred to Gonzalez as someone who “single-handedly changed the course of American politics.”

But instead of explaining how Gonzalez achieved that feat, the show veered off into a mocking discussion of “Afros” worn by black baseball players.

The show’s Web site listed a few “fun facts” about Gonzalez: “He weighs 345 lbs. … He couldn’t speak ANY language until he was five. …He has never had health insurance. … He talks to himself. … He has a very messy room.”

Rather than male oppressors protecting the presidential glass ceiling, the two hecklers came across as dumb-guy losers pulling a juvenile shock-jock stunt.

Still, the “iron my shirts” incident fueled the anger of New Hampshire’s women as they turned out in surprisingly strong numbers to give their support to Hillary Clinton.

The longer-term danger, however, is that Clinton’s reliance on the "gender card" – especially as Obama resists playing the "race card" – might ultimately pit two important Democratic constituencies against one another.

Identity politics could trump a serious debate over the candidates’ differences on the Iraq War and other pressing issues. In the end, many Americans surely would be turned off by a high-profile squabble over who has the bigger historic grievance, American women or American blacks.

Given the numerical superiority of women over blacks, that argument might help the Clintons achieve their immediate goal of again capturing the Democratic presidential nomination. But it could leave their party – and their nation – even more divided.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Karl Rove's Racist Attack On Obama


01/11/2008 @ 7:50 am

Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Keith Olbermann began a segment on the presidential primary campaign with a disclaimer about the irrelevance of endorsements, saying the last time one may have made a decisive difference was when William Jennings Bryan backed Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

Adve

That said, he noted that Barack Obama has been picking up a large number of endorsements this week, the most high-profile coming from Sen. John Kerry, who proclaimed, "The old guard sometimes has a hard time acknowledging an individual who breaks the mold. ... Barack Obama isn't just going to break the mold. Together, we are going to shatter it into a million pieces and rebuild our nation."

"No official endorsements for Senator Clinton today," Olbermann stated, "but it sure appeared as if Karl Rove was back to backing the candidate he'd love to see beaten ... writing an op-ed in the now Murdoch-owned Murdoch Street Journal, in which he explains why Mrs. Clinton won in New Hampshire and otherwise eviscerates Senator Obama, saying of the Illinois Democrat's performance at the debate Saturday, 'His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.'"

Political analyst Richard Wolffe joined Olbermann to comment on the Kerry endorsement, which he called "very well timed ... because there is a question of foreign policy experience, of where the establishment of the party is likely to go."

He further explained that the endorsements by Kerry and by a congressman who is extremely close to Nancy Pelosi are not really intended for voters, but should be taken as "important signals to the party that not only can Obama be taken seriously, but they should consider where they put their endorsements."

Of the Rove editorial, Wolffe stated, "Talking to some of Obama's aides, I think they detected a pretty ugly undertone in Rove's op-ed there. The 'trash-talking.' The 'basketball.' The 'lazy' thing. Is he suggesting that there's some sort of color aspect to Barack Obama's behavior that he's getting at? It was uncomfortably close to the edge of being plain-out racist."

"That's Karl," said Olbermann.

The racist slant of Rove's op-ed has already been widely noted among bloggers, with one of the more vehement writing, "When you take into consideration the malevolent genius of Karl Rove - The god damned Johnny Appleseed of fear harvesting - and understand that the higher echelon of the Republican base is being spoon-fed a concoction that consists of a feminist-socialist lesbian wife of a shill president or a lazy, jive-talking, b-ball playing huckster boy politician from Chicago ... Rove's ability to triangulate issues and interweave them with subtle strereotypical imagery would be fun to read if it was fiction. Unfortunately in real life, the fat master has stirred and is testing the waters to see if his style of politics still plays."



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Just When I Think I've Heard It All; Junior Does It Again

...and my jaw hits The floor.

Seven years of crap like this and I have callouses on my jaw.



Bush: ‘We Should Have Bombed’ Aushwitz to Stop the Killing - Ignores Fact His Grandfather Profited from Nazi Slave Labor

George Bush toured the Holocaust memorial in Israel yesterday, and through tears, came up with a telling formulation about what his predecessor, Pres. Franklin Roosevelt, should have done to stop the horror at the German concentration camps:

It is impossible to imagine any other politician whose grandfather had profited from Nazi slave labor who could tour a Holocaust memorial with the media in tow and not be hounded for a comment on his grandfather’s role in the horror.

President George W. Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel’s Holocaust memorial and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial’s chairman said.

And the bombs wouldn't have killed the Jews? But then, Junior probably thinks that death is superior to hard-work, if one is poor.

Bush emerged from a tour of the Yad Vashem memorial today calling it a “sobering reminder” that evil must be resisted, and praising victims for not losing their faith.

Wasn't it Jesus whop said: Resist not evil?

Wearing a yarmulke, Bush placed a red-white-and-blue wreath on a stone slab that covers ashes of Holocaust victims taken from six extermination camps. He also lit a torch memorializing the victims.

Bush was visibly moved as he toured the site, said Yad Vashem’s chairman, Avner Shalev.

“Twice, I saw tears well up in his eyes,” Shalev said.

Who the hell wouldn't be moved by such a sight?

At one point, Bush viewed aerial photos of the Auschwitz camp taken during the war by U.S. forces and called Rice over to discuss why the American government had decided against bombing the site, Shalev said.

“We should have bombed it,” Bush said, according to Shalev.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, the saying goes, then every solution will look like a nail. Thus, in Bush’s primitive brain, the best way to have stopped the horror at the camps would have been to bomb the hell out of them.

Mainly, though, it’s hard to get past the cognitive dissonance of reading an honest, human utterance from Bush’s mouth that was not crafted by the White House political shop and focus-grouped in Paramus to ensure ambiguity.

It also reminds us of the unique kid-glove treatment George W. Bush receives from the media. It is impossible to imagine any other politician whose grandfather had profited from Nazi slave labor who could tour a Holocaust memorial with the media in tow and not be hounded for a comment on his grandfather’s role in the horror.

...and who can forget who gave the Bushes their frozen assets back to them after the war. Truman, that's who. Just imagine a family of poor Bushies. Hard to do, eh? That's because we might never have heard of them had Truman kept their ill-earned moolah in thee U.S. treasury. Maybe the net president can rectify the mistake and take back every dime of war profit from the Bushies and the Cheneys, just to start.

No way will any reporter ask Junior that question. He/She would have nothing left to do but clean out his/her office.

'Tis a question that certainly needs asking, especially since Junior's War on Tur" is constantly compared to WWII by the history-challenged imbeciles in the W.H. But it will never happen.

First the history: Before the war, the Hitler regime’s mistreatment of Jews — particularly the government’s policy of ethnically cleansing Jews out of mixed neighborhoods into Jewish-only ghettos — may have seemed less outrageous in the racially segregated America of the late 1930s than it does today. The same goes for conscripting Jews into forced labor. In 1942, just four years after the Germans began sending Jews to labor camps, the U.S. government sent thousands of Japanese-American citizens into camps in the west, for example.

While the American public had no idea about the mass killings until after the camps were liberated in 1945, the debate continues even now among historians about the extent of FDR’s knowledge of the genocide while it was underway. He died in April that year, just four months after Auschwitz was captured.

In the scheme of things, however, the martyrdom of the Jews, Gypsies and gay people in the camps has had a positive effect on European and German society, for the entirety of civilization, because the fact that the camps were intact at the war’s end provided irrefutable evidence of the genocide.

I suppose one can, in retrospect, find a silver lining around any dark cloud, even a mushroom cloud. Unfortunately, the Holocaust has not eradicated man's inhumanity to man, certainly not in the U.S.. Even while we joined in the Jewish chant of "never again," our government had used one the most heinous weapons known to mankind; the bomb, not once, but twice, destroying two entire Japanese cities. It wasn't necessary, no matter how many feel good stories we have been fed about all the lives those two bombs saved.Tokyo was ready to crumble and that was the intelligence that was given to Truman before he made the decision to use the bomb. Those bombs weren't dropped to save lives; they were dropped to cause Old Joe Stalin to wet himself. Truman succeeded and the cold war was on, the military-industrial complex was born ravenous and whole generations of Americans have been born in the shadow of those two atomic bombs, knowing deep in their souls that sooner or later, our atomic karma will come around, and it will. That is simply the way of things.

For example, after the war, the Allied commanders forced rank and file German citizens, who claimed not to have known that their government was gassing 6 million people literally under their noses, to tour the camps to see with their own eyes the horror wrought in their names (and with their tax dollars) — and to witness the inevitable result of the bigotry ingrained in their culture. Forcing the Germans to accept the horrible truth about Nazism contributed to bringing an end to Germany’s decades of aggression against its neighbors, once and for all.

Wonder what it will take for us?

What has been all but forgotten, however, is the role of Prescott Bush, George W. Bush’s grandfather, who was in business with the Nazis even after the U.S. entered the war in late 1941:

George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

We will never know if George Bush gave any thought to his grandfather’s role in the creation of the Nazi camps while he toured a memorial to the horror they produced. One of his biggest flaws is his instinctive reflex to deflect responsibility for his own failings, so it is unlikely he’d see any connection between himself, the family fortune that paved his way to power and the portion of it that came from profits from his grandfather’s business dealings with Hitler’s government.

That would hit him a little too close to home.

One can't help but wonder if he even knows. Something tells me that there is plenty Poppy and Babs never told the family goofball.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Splintered Goopers On Parade


P.M. Carpenter

January 11, 2008

If any Democrat can't beat any of the Battling Bickersons in the Fox News debate last night, then the oldest political party in the world might as well fold its tent in permanently whipped humiliation. The televised exchange spotlighted the GOP's fractured ideological stance -- which is now wide indeed -- and overall the participants reflected the charm of a Bob Dole, the compassion of a Pat Robertson, and the brilliance of a George W. Bush.

Each tried his best on occasion to come across as light-hearted and personable -- except, of course, the humorless Ron Paul -- but the funniest moment came from Fox News' co-interrogator Brit Hume as he labored mightily to foment a third world war over the recent Strait of Hormuz incident. The poor dear was obviously crushed when he failed to enlist the panelists' disgust over the lack of the U.S. Navy's general bombardment of ... somebody, anybody ... but the South Carolina Republican Party compensated by opening the debate with a rousing choral rendition of the Star Spangled Banner.

Fox News didn't yet have a transcript up at the time of this early-morning writing, so I'm afraid I can't provide a link for your fullest edification. I did try settling for Fox News' online coverage of the debate, but when, early on, it noted John McCain's past as a "ship captain" rather than Naval aviator (a reference I now see they have just deleted), I thought it best to rely on Fox News no more. Can those folks, first try, ever get anything right?

Huge difference, Brit

So I skipped on over to the New York Times for quotable quotes instead, especially since the Times itself entered as a target in last night's debate. The ever-witty Fred Thompson, with cue-card jokes firmly at hand, at one point quipped that "you can tell that the news is good coming out of Iraq because you read so little about it in The New York Times." Oh my, good one, Fred, a real zinger. One wonders who reads the Times to Fred, or if they've read to him any of its expansively positive tales of late; but golly shucks, a great joke is a great joke and reality only tends to spoil it.

Fred Thompson reminds me of a big old lazy toad frog. Of course he has not read the Times and he is pretty damn sure none of the South Carolinian audience at the GOP/FOX debate has either. He knows that the blogs on the left and even moderate ones will probably catch his error, but who cares. No one who reads, consistently, several news sources will vote for him any how so he might as well play to the ignorant base.

Nonetheless the Times seemed to award "best performance" to the ungrateful Mr. Thompson, crediting him for having "provided some of the liveliest moments of the debate." These came about from Fred's crosshairs being fixed on Mike Huckabee, whom the former charged would deliver unto us "liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies." I'm unsure what a "liberal foreign policy" is, exactly, other than decades of Cold Warriorism, but let us quibble not: the demagogic essence of Fred's broad offensives throughout the evening was merely that of dropping the dreaded L-bomb on the Huck.

One also wonders if Huckabee helped himself last night, as he tended to confirm Fred's charges on his "liberal economic" contours by countering with outrageous decencies like this: "We need to make sure that we communicate that our party is just as interested in helping the people who are single moms, who are working two jobs and still just barely paying the rent as we are the people at the top of the economy."

The Huckster is trying to position himself well for November, way too soon, I might add. He is reaching out to he Christian Left, many of whom are disaffected Republicans, again way too soon, and it is hard to imagine the group I am referring to voting for a Southern Baptist preacher. They liked Ike, but Nixon did them in, especially since everything has only gotten worse with the moral majority and the Christian coalition, not to mention the 700 club and some very perverted leadership in the mega(bucks)churches. The Christian Left doesn't believe in getting overly involved in national politics. They see D.C. politics as corrupted to the hilt and understand well that corruption can be, and often is, contagious.

Given how many times the words "crusader" and 'crusades" have been used by the out-going administration, not to mention all of the hideous anti-Muslim rhetoric that's been shouted about by the Evangelicals since 9/11, the most insane thing we could possibly do is elect Huckabee, providing we want the slightest chance of turning things around.

Has Mike checked his party registration lately? Is he aware that few Republicans pols since Alf Landon have cared about policies with a humanitarian spin? Give it up, Mike. You can't reinvent the modern GOP in a few months, and you can't change its primaries' megalomaniacal obsession with trickle-down tax cuts. Those single moms can by God fend for themselves, the losers.

The best scorching, however, came not from Thompson, in my opinion, but McCain. And it was -- you guessed it -- Mitt Romney who got sautéed. The moment came during one of Mitt's tedious demagogic spiels directed at Michigan's unemployed: "I know that there are some people who think, as Senator McCain did -- he said, you know, some jobs have left Michigan that are never coming back. I disagree. I’m going to fight for every single job." To which McCain replied, cooly: "Sometimes you have to tell people things they don’t want to hear along with things that they do want to hear. There are some jobs that aren’t coming back to Michigan. There are some jobs that won’t come back here to South Carolina." And with that touch of globalization reality, Mitt was left looking like the desperate demagogue he is.

Sounds like McCain has, at least, realized that the Gooper tradition of lying bald-faced, right to the people's face, is no longer a totally viable tactic. That doesn't mean that he won't lie again. More likely his lies will be about Iraq and Iran, much harder to bust him on those.

Nevertheless, It's too damn bad McCain didn't have the guts to stand up to Junior, whose political SS called Cindy McCain a drug addict and labeled his and Cindy's adopted Bangladeshi daughter, a bastard resulting from one of John's bi-racial affairs. There is no evidence that John ever had a bi-racial affair and Cindy's addiction was the result of an accident for which she was prescribed major painkillers (opiates). Cindy decided on her own that she was in trouble and sought treatment. Iatrogenic addiction is far more common, still, than anyone wants to believe, but Cindy did the right thing. She sought help and recovered from her addiction. Still, in the Karl Rove push-poll, S.C primary 2000, she was made to sound as if she was buying heroin and/or crack cocaine off the streets. Yes, McCain confronted Junior, who refused to accept responsibility or apologize for what his political operatives had done. Instead, when the dust settled, one would have thought that John was Junior's long lost brother or something. As a matter of fact, Junior was pretending to play guitar at John's b'day party while NOLA drowned.

I liked McCain up until that incident. I can, in no way, trust a man, any man, who is not more loyal to and protective of his wife and daughter than of a president, any president. There is something really wrong with this man.

Unfortunately, desperate demagoguery sells -- especially to desperate people. How it sells to the desperate in Michigan, we'll soon see.

Desperate, ignorant people...people who cannot think for themselves. I'm betting that the people of Michigan will prove to be neither, though they certainly have a perfect right to feel desperate. They aren't by themselves now and they will have much more company in the very near future.

And of course there was Rudy Giuliani, who mostly focused on setting a new record for the number of times a man can say "Ronald Reagan" in 90 minutes. I really do regret that a transcript isn't up yet, for I very much wanted to count the bootlicking references. It was like Rudy was on some kind of pre-recorded loop. In lieu of that count, however, I bring you this choice selection from Rudy, who hammered his early support of the surge in Iraq with Keith Olbermann-like, comedic rapidity: "The night of the president’s speech, I was on television. I supported the surge. I’ve supported it throughout." How he omitted squeezing "9/11" into that I'll leave for others to ponder, although I imagine somewhere out there today is an unemployed debate-prepper.

This isn't the first time Rudy G has tried to ally himself with the late Mr. Reagan; the same Mr Reagan, who while in the oval office, opined that Rudy was several bricks shy of a load: I think he called him "nuts." I imagine that Nancy will put her foot down when The Goopers ask for permission to dig up that tired old corpse for another national tour before the election.

In general, though, the debate pretty much confirmed that any Democratic candidate should have the easiest cakewalk in the history of U.S. presidential elections. The GOP's 30-year-old fusion has unraveled, and that's what principally was on display last night in South Carolina. It no longer has a threefold base -- social, economic and national-security radicals -- but three bases. And there's a huge difference.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Finally, It Will Be Up To The People.

Just as we have been saying for the last three years

It's gross hypocrisy

Mike Gravel rates Democrat opponents

Congress could do a good job, theoretically, but it can't. Why? Its owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate America. So you think you're going to become president and you're going to turn to the Congress and say, “Let's really straighten out corporate America.” This is foolishness. It's fantasy.

Video and transcript - 10/01/08

Transcript:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: Do you distinguish between the three leading candidates coming out of Iowa and going into New Hampshire, in terms of the polling? You know, Obama and Edwards and Clinton. Do you distinguish between them in any way?

MIKE GRAVEL: No. I think that they're the product of the celebrity nature of American communication. And that's the sadness of it all. You know. They have the same level of celebrity attention as Britney Spears has.

JAY: When you get down to the policy level, there are some differences between them. Are they significant differences?

GRAVEL: No, not at all. They're not significant. All three of them want the health care paid for through business enterprise, which cripples business enterprise. What's the difference? And as far as education, they're all three endorsed by the NEA [National Education Association]. You're not going to see any changes in our educational system. What else? Education, health care. Two vital ones. The rest is just rinky-dinking around.

JAY: Edwards has certainly been talking more aggressively about taking on corporate America.

GRAVEL: Oh, yeah. Tell me how you're going to do that. No. I mean, how do you do that? I don't know how to do that. I know, if I can empower the American people, that they can sustain some policies, that I would do that.

JAY: Certainly there are laws Congress could pass. I mean, a president working with Congress—.

GRAVEL: Oh, Congress could do a good job, theoretically, but it can't. Why? Its owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate America. So you think you're going to become president and you're going to turn to the Congress and say, “Let's really straighten out corporate America.” This is foolishness. It's fantasy. But it sounds good on the stump. I could make that kind of speech. Oh, man. Just listen to me. What am I going to do to corporate America? You can't believe. And I know a lot about corporate personhood and POCLAD and all of that. But so what?

JAY: But in a campaign like this, if someone has the potential of winning and makes some kind of promises, in theory they can mean something.

GRAVEL: In theory what it means is you're a hypocrite. That's what it means in theory, because if you're smart enough to know you can't deliver, and you tell them you can deliver, what are you doing? You're raising expectations and you're lying to the people. Or you're too dumb to know you're lying to the people.

JAY: Do you distinguish between the leading Democrats and the leading Republicans?

GRAVEL: Oh, the leading Republicans, in my point of view, are nutty as loons. They really are. I mean, they're warmongers. I mean, the Democrats at least—here, I'll give you this example. The Republicans and Bush. Lump them together. You've got boiling water. You take a frog, you throw him in the water, and the frog jumps out. You get the Democrats. You get tepid water. You put the frog in the water, and you turn the heat up slowly, and you cook the frog, and nobody knows the difference.

JAY: Okay, but that's an argument for saying there isn't significant differences between the Republicans and the Democrats.

GRAVEL: Where are the Democrats raising all their money right now? Wall Street.

JAY: No, wait. Hold on. When I asked you first, you said they're nutty as loons. That kind of implies the others aren't nutty as loons.

GRAVEL: Well, they're not as bad, no, they're not as bad. Well, no, they're not as bad. Far from it. They're not as bad. But they're pretty bad. Here. The Democrats are raising more money from Wall Street than the Republicans are right now, from the same people who own the Republican Party.

JAY: So, then, what do you make of Obama's promise of change and all the rhetoric that's been going along with his campaign?

GRAVEL: It's foolish. Foolish. Dangerous. Dangerous, because he doesn't even recognize that he can't deliver. That's dangerous. I would rather - Hillary. At least she knows what she's talking about. He doesn't.

JAY: Edwards?

GRAVEL: Edwards? He probably knows better, what he's talking about, than Obama. Obama of the three is the most dangerous, because he raises greater expectations of the youth and can't deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don't happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that's what he's doing. And he’s used the line [inaudible] reason out what he's saying. You know, the statement I like that I've heard from young people: there's no ‘there’ there. And listen to the words. Make a speech and use the word change ten times—what specifically are you going to change? You're going to change the health care system? Not really. You're going to change the military-industrial complex? Not really. He wants another hundred thousand more troops. Are you going to change anything about your relationship with Iran? Not really. Nukes are on the table. Are you going to change anything with respect to Israel? Not really. He's supported by AIPAC. Are you going to change anything for education? He's on the education committee. He's supported by the NEA. Where's change? I don't see any change. But he doesn't say any of those things. He lets you figure out what the change is. So it's like an actor. What does an actor do? He gives you a scene, and you read into it what the scene means to you. And that's what he's doing. It's terrible, because what you read into it isn't what's going to happen, 'cause he's going to have the reality. The simplest one of all is we have a $50 to $70 trillion fiscal gap. There's no money to do anything, never mind this imperialism, which is why there's no money to do anything. Here. You recall that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama all said, when asked by Tim Russert, would you have the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2013? And all three of them equivocated, weren't sure that they could do it. And then you heard just last night, oh, yeah; I'm going to start withdrawing them immediately. What are they talking about? Say one thing; say another thing. You know, withdrawing immediately, what does that mean? We'll withdraw ten this month, and then I'm going to change my mind next month? It's gross hypocrisy - is really what it is. It's politics as usual, and that's sad, because we're at a turning point in '08. If we continue with American imperialism, we're done as a nation. Truly are. And two things coming at us. We're going to be irrelevant in the world. You see this in foreign affairs when you see all these other countries making arrangements by themselves; don't even invite us to the meeting. Why? We come to a meeting; we think we know it all. We're the superpower—you've got to listen to us.

JAY: Which meeting do you have in mind?

GRAVEL: Oh, they have meetings between China and India, between India and Malaysia, between Pakistan and India. You name it. There's meetings going on all over the world, and we're not invited.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Finally, It Will Be Up To The People.

Just as we have been saying for the last three years

It's gross hypocrisy

Mike Gravel rates Democrat opponents

Congress could do a good job, theoretically, but it can't. Why? Its owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate America. So you think you're going to become president and you're going to turn to the Congress and say, “Let's really straighten out corporate America.” This is foolishness. It's fantasy.

Video and transcript - 10/01/08

Transcript:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: Do you distinguish between the three leading candidates coming out of Iowa and going into New Hampshire, in terms of the polling? You know, Obama and Edwards and Clinton. Do you distinguish between them in any way?

MIKE GRAVEL: No. I think that they're the product of the celebrity nature of American communication. And that's the sadness of it all. You know. They have the same level of celebrity attention as Britney Spears has.

JAY: When you get down to the policy level, there are some differences between them. Are they significant differences?

GRAVEL: No, not at all. They're not significant. All three of them want the health care paid for through business enterprise, which cripples business enterprise. What's the difference? And as far as education, they're all three endorsed by the NEA [National Education Association]. You're not going to see any changes in our educational system. What else? Education, health care. Two vital ones. The rest is just rinky-dinking around.

JAY: Edwards has certainly been talking more aggressively about taking on corporate America.

GRAVEL: Oh, yeah. Tell me how you're going to do that. No. I mean, how do you do that? I don't know how to do that. I know, if I can empower the American people, that they can sustain some policies, that I would do that.

JAY: Certainly there are laws Congress could pass. I mean, a president working with Congress—.

GRAVEL: Oh, Congress could do a good job, theoretically, but it can't. Why? Its owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate America. So you think you're going to become president and you're going to turn to the Congress and say, “Let's really straighten out corporate America.” This is foolishness. It's fantasy. But it sounds good on the stump. I could make that kind of speech. Oh, man. Just listen to me. What am I going to do to corporate America? You can't believe. And I know a lot about corporate personhood and POCLAD and all of that. But so what?

JAY: But in a campaign like this, if someone has the potential of winning and makes some kind of promises, in theory they can mean something.

GRAVEL: In theory what it means is you're a hypocrite. That's what it means in theory, because if you're smart enough to know you can't deliver, and you tell them you can deliver, what are you doing? You're raising expectations and you're lying to the people. Or you're too dumb to know you're lying to the people.

JAY: Do you distinguish between the leading Democrats and the leading Republicans?

GRAVEL: Oh, the leading Republicans, in my point of view, are nutty as loons. They really are. I mean, they're warmongers. I mean, the Democrats at least—here, I'll give you this example. The Republicans and Bush. Lump them together. You've got boiling water. You take a frog, you throw him in the water, and the frog jumps out. You get the Democrats. You get tepid water. You put the frog in the water, and you turn the heat up slowly, and you cook the frog, and nobody knows the difference.

JAY: Okay, but that's an argument for saying there isn't significant differences between the Republicans and the Democrats.

GRAVEL: Where are the Democrats raising all their money right now? Wall Street.

JAY: No, wait. Hold on. When I asked you first, you said they're nutty as loons. That kind of implies the others aren't nutty as loons.

GRAVEL: Well, they're not as bad, no, they're not as bad. Well, no, they're not as bad. Far from it. They're not as bad. But they're pretty bad. Here. The Democrats are raising more money from Wall Street than the Republicans are right now, from the same people who own the Republican Party.

JAY: So, then, what do you make of Obama's promise of change and all the rhetoric that's been going along with his campaign?

GRAVEL: It's foolish. Foolish. Dangerous. Dangerous, because he doesn't even recognize that he can't deliver. That's dangerous. I would rather - Hillary. At least she knows what she's talking about. He doesn't.

JAY: Edwards?

GRAVEL: Edwards? He probably knows better, what he's talking about, than Obama. Obama of the three is the most dangerous, because he raises greater expectations of the youth and can't deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don't happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that's what he's doing. And he’s used the line [inaudible] reason out what he's saying. You know, the statement I like that I've heard from young people: there's no ‘there’ there. And listen to the words. Make a speech and use the word change ten times—what specifically are you going to change? You're going to change the health care system? Not really. You're going to change the military-industrial complex? Not really. He wants another hundred thousand more troops. Are you going to change anything about your relationship with Iran? Not really. Nukes are on the table. Are you going to change anything with respect to Israel? Not really. He's supported by AIPAC. Are you going to change anything for education? He's on the education committee. He's supported by the NEA. Where's change? I don't see any change. But he doesn't say any of those things. He lets you figure out what the change is. So it's like an actor. What does an actor do? He gives you a scene, and you read into it what the scene means to you. And that's what he's doing. It's terrible, because what you read into it isn't what's going to happen, 'cause he's going to have the reality. The simplest one of all is we have a $50 to $70 trillion fiscal gap. There's no money to do anything, never mind this imperialism, which is why there's no money to do anything. Here. You recall that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama all said, when asked by Tim Russert, would you have the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2013? And all three of them equivocated, weren't sure that they could do it. And then you heard just last night, oh, yeah; I'm going to start withdrawing them immediately. What are they talking about? Say one thing; say another thing. You know, withdrawing immediately, what does that mean? We'll withdraw ten this month, and then I'm going to change my mind next month? It's gross hypocrisy - is really what it is. It's politics as usual, and that's sad, because we're at a turning point in '08. If we continue with American imperialism, we're done as a nation. Truly are. And two things coming at us. We're going to be irrelevant in the world. You see this in foreign affairs when you see all these other countries making arrangements by themselves; don't even invite us to the meeting. Why? We come to a meeting; we think we know it all. We're the superpower—you've got to listen to us.

JAY: Which meeting do you have in mind?

GRAVEL: Oh, they have meetings between China and India, between India and Malaysia, between Pakistan and India. You name it. There's meetings going on all over the world, and we're not invited.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Musharraf Gets Tough With Bush

Pakistan Warns US of Entering Border Regions to Fight al-Qaida: Report

Staff
AP News

Jan 11, 2008 00:05 EST

President Pervez Musharraf warned that U.S. troops would be regarded as invaders if they crossed into Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan in the hunt for al-Qaida or Taliban militants, according to an interview published Friday. Musharraf, whose popularity has plummeted amid a surge in extremist attacks in recent months, also told Singapore's The Straits Times that he would resign if opposition parties tried to impeach him following next month's parliamentary elections.

Pakistan is under growing U.S. pressure to crack down on militants in its tribal regions close to the Afghan border.

The rugged area has long been considered a likely hiding place for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, as well as an operating ground for Taliban militants planning attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The New York Times reported last week that Washington was considering expanding the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to peruse aggressive covert operations within the tribal regions.

Musharraf told the Straits Times that U.S. troops would "certainly" be considered invaders if they set foot in the tribal regions.

"If they come without our permission, that's against the sovereignty of Pakistan. I challenge anybody coming into our mountains," he said in the interview in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. "They would regret that day."

Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup eight years ago, is also under growing domestic pressure.

The party of slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and the other main opposition grouping are predicted to make gains in the Feb. 18 polls. They have vowed to oust Musharraf if they emerge as winners. Musharraf is seen as vulnerable to impeachment over his decision to fire Supreme Court judges and suspend the constitution last year.

"If that (impeachment) happens, let me assure that I'd be leaving office before they would do anything. If they won with this kind of majority and they formed a government that had the intention of doing this, I wouldn't like to stick around," he said. "I would like to quit the scene."

Source: AP News


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

VET Jailed For Speaking

Found Guilty of, get this, ....disorderly disturbing of congress!

Can any one of us think of any group more deserving of disturbing?

January 10, 2008

By David Swanson

By David Swanson, based on report from Malachy Kilbride

Mike Ferner was found guilty today in District of Columbia Superior Court. He has just been sentenced.

Ferner was originally sentenced to 5 days incarceration suspended and 6 months unsupervised probation including a $100 fine and $50 to the victims compensation fund.

He told the judge that he would not pay the fine and that his highest civic duty was to protest as the Germans should have done against Hitler. "Today we must speak out against the crimes of our government," Ferner said, according to Joy First who was in court in solidarity with Ferner.

Ferner has been taken away by US Marshals to jail.

The judge vacated the sentence and gave him a new sentence of one night in DC jail, First said.

Ferner is a national officer of Veterans For Peace.

Ferner, who served as a Navy Hospital Corpsman during the Viet Nam war, was arrested September 20, in the the visitors' gallery of the U.S. House of Representatives when he and another activist stood up and loudly addressed the members of Congress, saying: "Funding the War is Killing Our Troops!"

Ferner was arrested by Capitol Police and charged with disorderly disturbing Congress, a charge that carries a maximum 6 months jail sentence.

"The government says I was disturbing Congress, but that is not the case," said Ferner, a freelance writer from Toledo, Ohio. "I stood up in the House Gallery to sound an alarm, and you don't knock quietly on the door when your neighbor's house is on fire. You pound and raise your voice as if lives depend on it--and that is exactly what's happening in Iraq. Thousands of lives are being lost, the war is causing untold suffering, and Congress keeps throwing gasoline on the flames."

"We have politely petitioned, called and written Congress to demonstrate we want this war ended, and they keep voting more billions for the war. Clearly we need to ring an alarm to get the point across to these people so far removed from the consequences of their votes," Ferner concluded.


Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org

Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

New Hampshire Election Fraud?

January 9, 2008

By Ron Corvus

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it................I knew it HAD to be election fraud.........let the election season fraud begin.

New Hampshire Election Fraud: Hillary LOST the paper ballot count but WON the optical scan ballot count. Obama WON the paper ballot count but LOST the optical scan ballot count.

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 236,378 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%
Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.592% (17,946 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,991 votes)

I knew there was something a bit fishy about Hillary winning New Hampshire.
First of all, today, all the polls indicated a double-digit lead for Obama.
Obama internal polls had him winning by 14 points. Hillary's camp had him winning by 11 points.
Even the Hillary camp conceded virtual defeat early on.
Even Hillary believed she had lost before the polls closed. I can't recall a primary where a candidate had a double-digit lead the day of the election, but finished several points behind. Even the exit polling showed no sign of a Hillary win. The exit polls showed about even. Exit polls have a history of accurate projections.
Despite this, Hillary maintained about a three point difference the entire evening.
AP called it for Hillary with only 61% reporting. CNN still refused to call if for Hillary, as they explained and demonstrated on an electronic map how several key precincts had not come in yet. But that didn't stop NBC calling it for Hillary.
With 94% reporting, those key precincts STILL showed zero per cent reporting. NONE of the TV pundits could explain the differences.
Here's one pundit's excuse: "Maybe it has to do with the voting curtain in New Hampshire (private voting) whereas Iowa was public voting."

Today, pundits are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how all the polls were wrong, the Clinton camp projections were wrong; the Obama camp projections were wrong - it just doesn't add up to anything other than election fraud.

peace, r o n

News Updates from Citizens for Legitimate Government

Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results By Lori Price 09 Jan 2008

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%

Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 236,378 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%

Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.592% (17,946 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,991 votes)

NH: "First in the nation" (with corporate controlled secret vote counting) By Nancy Tobi 07 Jan 2008 81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier"). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. [See also CLG's Coup 2004 and Yes, Gore DID win!.]

Please forward this update to anyone you think might be interested. Those who'd like to be added to the Newsletter list can sign up: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg.
Please write to:
signup@legitgov.org for inquiries.

CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, Manager. Copyright © 2008, Citizens For Legitimate Government ® All rights reserved. CLG Founder and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.



Authors Website: www.corvusblog.com

Authors Bio: http://www.corvusblog.com http://www.roncorvus.com


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.