Kellia’s World – Recommended Reading

Challenging the assumptions we live by — Because I want to.

Posts Tagged ‘Election ’08’

Sen. McCain’s Concession Speech

Posted by kelliasworld on November 4, 2008

was very gracious. But the crowd booed a his concession and a couple of references to Obama’s future leadership and McCain’s own willingness to work with Obama, to a level I don’t recall in past concessions. He and Palin should have been that gracious during the campaign. They may have let an angry genie out of the bottle that may be very difficult to put back, no matter how much McCain may now want it. McCain said he looked forward to seeing Palin’s future service to Alaska, the party and the nation. I look forward to her disappearing from the national stage.

Posted in Election '08 | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

I voted!

Posted by kelliasworld on November 4, 2008

No drama. At about 1:15 pm PST. In a place called the Rotary Nature Center, where I have voting for many years. (I’ve lived at the same address for 20 years). I live in a racially mixed neighborhood near downtown Oakland, CA. I’m in a precinct of 1250 people and I was #303 to deposit my paper ballot into the Sequioa Voting Systems Optech insight optical scanner. The paper ballot has broken arrows you have to connect. You have to connect the broken arrow when you write-in a candidate, too. I had one write-in. I would prefer to make an X in a box. I am never sure about the thickness of the line or the fact that I cannot draw a straight line without a ruler and they don’t give you rulers at the polls. Everything went through smoothly but I still don’t trust it. How does it count both sides?

I heard one poll worker say that it had been busy in the morning, right when the polls opened at 7 am, but then it quieted down. Some people started coming in after me.

Voting is always quiet in my neighborhood. I have had to wait (3 people ahead of me) a couple of times over the last two decades, but not for this “election of a lifetime” as a local newspaper headline stated. I’m glad I have never had to face the hassles that are being reported today out of Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Posted in Election '08, Electronic Voting | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Obama: Change you can believe in…Not! (Part 3)

Posted by kelliasworld on November 3, 2008

[Originally published on the website Speaking Truth to Power. Apologies in advance for any cosmetic issues. — KR]

By Kéllia Ramares

Part 3 – Israel and Iran

Which country comes foremost in US foreign policy, the United States or Israel? Sometimes it’s hard to tell. The Israeli-centric approach to US Middle East foreign policy, which is unfair to the Palestinians and dangerous to a United States dependent on foreign oil, will not change in an Obama Administration.

Which office is Obama running for?

On June 4, 2008, the day after Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, he spoke to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Here are some excerpts of that speech:

I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good Friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that they bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.

… I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea – that there is always a homeland at the center of our story. … We know the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security….Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. … Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.1

Great Great speech…for a candidate for Prime Minister of Israel.

Later in the summer Robert Fisk, renowned British journalist who has covered the Middle East for over 20 years, said: But hasn’t anyone realised that Obama has chosen for his advisers two if the most lamentable failures of US Middle East policy making? There, yet again, is Dennis Ross, a former prominent staff member of AIPAC, the most powerful Israeli lobby in Washington — yup, the very same AIPAC to which Obama grovelled last month – and the man who failed to make the Oslo agreement work. And there is Madeleine Albright who, as US ambassador the the UN, said that the price of half a million dead children under sanctions in Iraq was “worth it”, and who later announced that Israel was “under siege”. This must be the only time – ever – that a US politician thought Palestinian tanks were on the streets of Tel Aviv.2

Understand that Zionism is a political philosophy and is not the same as Judaism, which is a religion. One does not have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. In fact, Christian Zionists are prominent as supporters of and elected officials from the Republican Party.3 Some Christian Zionists, particularly the Dispensationalists,–the late Rev. Jerry Falwell was one–want Israel to claim all of Palestine because they believe that this is a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ.4 However, these Christian Zionists also believe that the Jews and all other non-Christians will be condemned on Judgment Day. So they don’t have any particular love for the Jewish people.

Jewish Zionism stems from the anti-Semitism Jews have faced in Europe and elsewhere. Jewish Zionists see Israel as the one place Jews can be safe.5 But not all Jews are Zionists, and in fact, Zionism is actually considered by many Jews to be a heresy.6 So being Anti-Zionist does not mean one is Anti-Semitic.

There are two kinds of Holocaust deniers. There are the fools and propagandists, like white supremacists and Iran’s President Ahmadinejad who claim it never happened or that far fewer Jews were killed than the history books say. There is certainly more than enough documentation of the atrocities to prove these fools wrong.

But there is a second, less publicized but more pernicious, form of Holocaust denial. One that many of us are guilty of. It’s the denial that overemphasizes the tragedy of the Jews and fails to comprehend the full scope of Hitler’s evil. While the Nazis made the Jews the scapegoats for Germany’s economic problems post WWI, Hitler also persecuted Slavs, Roma (Gypsies), trade unionists, Communists, homosexuals, who were marked with a pink triangle as Jews were marked with a yellow Star of David, and the disabled. He also thought blacks were subhuman, and while there were not many blacks in Europe, Rommel “The Desert Fox” operated in North Africa, as the Nazis desperately searched for oil with which to fuel their war machine, and fascist ally Italy held Ethiopia as a colony.

While we often hear about the 6 million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust, we seldom hear about the over 20 million citizens of the Soviet Union, military and civilian, who died during WWII,7 and we hear even less about the atrocities committed by the Japanese allies of the Nazis in the Philippines, Korea, China, Indonesia and other places in Asia.

And, of course, in 1938, Hitler felt confident that he could eliminate the Jews because “no one remembers the Armenians” who, to this day, are seeking recognition for their genocide in waning days of the Ottoman Empire.

US Presidents of both parties, and their advisers, for too long have acted as if the Jewish people were the only ones ever to be victims of genocide. But if humanity is to learn the true lesson of the Holocaust, we must remember that other peoples were genocided before WWII, and have been genocided since WWII, and that others besides the Jews were genocided during WWII. The true lesson is that “Never again” must be “Never Again” for everybody, or else it will be “here we go again” for somebody. The goal should be to eliminate genocide from human behavior, not to guarantee of survival of one set of genocide victims above all others.

For “Never Again” to be realized, the dominator paradigm of human relations must be overthrown in favor of a system in which the rights of all people, as individuals and as group members, are respected. There are at least two competing ways of achieving this outcome. One way is through true democracy in which there is a “one person-one vote” principle and where various groups can speak, publish and educate in their own languages, worship, or not, as they please, band together in whatever political parties they wish, and engage in economic activity without discrimination.

The other, which seems to be the way the world is going, is for each people to have its own land. But the struggle for independence or autonomy is a bloody one, full of ethnic cleansing (e.g. Serbia) or acts of repression by the dominant culture over the minority (e.g. Tibet and China). Israel is but one famous example of this “one people on its own land” approach, which, frankly, is outdated in places where colonial powers have redrawn borders to weaken the power of local ethnic groups to resist. (This includes the United States in its treatment of Native American nations). And that “to each his own” solution is never equally applied. The United States, whichever party is in power, has an overweening concern for the survival of Israel as a Jewish state; the Palestinians are an afterthought, the Kurds, who are the largest ethnic group in the world to not have its own state, are hardly thought of at all. And a worldwide list of peoples with their own nationalistic aspirations, ignored or trampled on by larger powers, is fairly long, indeed.

Why is Israel so special to the United States? For some it may be the idea that the establishment of Greater Israel fulfills a biblical prophecy, for others it may be guilt over the Holocaust and the US failure to help Jews trying to escape the Nazis. But I think a large part of it may be that Israel gives the United States a firm pied-a-terre in the oil-rich Middle East. The worldwide search for resources we can control is at the heart of US foreign policy. Or to put it simply, “what’s our oil doing under their sand?” Our hunt for resources helps make the world a dangerous place, especially for the people who live with those resources, whatever their religion or ethnicity.

If we really want to end genocide in the world, we should debate which approach will best achieve that goal: True democracy within existing borders, (e.g. with respect to Israel and Palestine, a one-state approach), or nationalism, with its penchant for ethnic cleansing. How many of you know that in the days before the State of Israel was founded, the Arabs were driven off land that was to become Israel. How do we know all this? From the Hebrew press. In an article published 13 August 1993 in the Israeli daily Hadashot, writer Sarah Laybobis-Dar interviewed a number of Israelis who knew of the use of bacteriological weapons in 1948. One of those interviewed, Uri Mileshtin, an official historian for the Israeli Defense Forces, said that bacteria was used to poison the wells of every village emptied of its Arab inhabitants. According to Mileshtin, it was former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who gave the order in 1948 to remove Arabs from their villages, bulldoze their homes, and render their water wells unusable with typhus and dysentery bacteria.8 As I said in an earlier article, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

The preservation of Israel as a Jewish state seems racist to me. And in some other context with some other people it might be openly called racist. Ethnic separatism is racist and a poor substitute for what we really need to finally eliminate genocide, ie. universal recognition of human rights. And in the end, what does Israel as a Jewish state say about the ability of the Jewish people to live and thrive in the world? The world is big; Israel is very small. If Israel is the only place where Jews can feel safe, albeit with a sense of safety derived from being armed to the teeth, including with the bomb, and with the US at its back, the Jews will have been ghettoized on the planet, only this time by their own hand. They will have created the very thing they fought to escape during the Nazi era.

The United States, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has been so committed to the survival of Israel as a Jewish state, that discussion of a one-state solution has been banished to the fringes. Considering the cost to America in money, reputation, and eventually lives, if the US goes to war with Iran, I think Americans ought to be having a lively debate as to the best way to eliminate genocide, starting with the Middle East. But Obama, as he indicated in his speech to AIPAC, will continue the course of the United States guaranteeing the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.9 So people who thought that a black man would be especially sensitive to racism will be disappointed in Obama’s Middle East policies, as they see the aspirations of the Palestinians to political and economic autonomy take a back seat to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

Nuclear non-proliferation and Iran

Nuclear non-proliferation is certainly a worthy goal. But building up the image of Iran as a nuclear threat is not the way to achieve it. In his speech to AIPAC, Obama said “Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low-enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are facts. They cannot be denied and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.10

The fact that cannot be denied is that Iran’s alleged support for terrorism and the increase of its threats against Israel is a non-sequitur to its stockpiling of 150 kilos of low-enriched uranium. Low-enriched uranium is the type used in civilian nuclear power plants to generate electricity. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory, but Israel is not, recognizes the right of every nation to develop nuclear power for peaceful civilian uses.11 So far, the IAEA “has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran”12 although it is also urging Iran to implement all confidence building measure with respect to the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.13

The US has argued as early as 1998, during the Clinton Administration, that Iran has so much oil it doesn’t need civilian nuclear power and therefore must be enriching uranium to get the bomb.14 But running the country on nuclear power means Iran would have more oil to sell at a profit on the international market in later years as demand increasingly outstrips supply, even though Iran would have to import uranium. The one way to be sure that a nation was not using civilian nuclear power as a cover for a weapons program would be for all nations to agree to ban civilian nuclear power. But that is not about to happen.

Demands of the US and Western Europe that Iran allow Russia to enrich its uranium for civilian use is an insult to the sovereignty and dignity of Iran. This is the equivalent of being told, “Don’t try to use a knife yourself. Let an adult cut your meat for you.” All this talk about Iran trying to get the bomb is about selling another war, getting Americans to accept the idea that an attack on Iran (either by Israel or by the US) is necessary and therefore acceptable. You will be branded unpatriotic (and anti-Semitic) for not supporting the squandering of more American lives and money on a war against Iran.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran has made some very intemperate remarks about wiping Israel off the face of the earth, but we know that the real power in Iran is the Guardian Council, not the President. Ahmadinejad’s comments may be more bluster than threat, for home consumption. Iran is having a presidential election in 2009.

But let’s assume the worst for a moment. Suppose Iran really is trying to get the bomb. Why would it want to do such a thing? Maybe because Russia, Pakistan, India and Iran’s enemy Israel have the bomb? (Israel never officially answers the question of its nuclear status, but it’s been an open secret that Israel has the bomb since Mordecai Vanunu was prosecuted in the ’80s for letting that cat out of the bag). India, Pakistan and Israel are non-signatories to the NPT. Additionally, Israel’s guarantor, the US, has the bomb and has the ignominious distinction of being the only nation to actually use it. Might Iran be feeling a little insecure in that unstable region of the world, especially after it saw what happened to Saddam Hussein, even though he did not have weapons of mass destruction? The United States will never be able to effectively promote nuclear non-proliferation if it fails to see things from the point of view of its adversaries and if it continues to promote the use of force to get its way.

But maybe nuclear non-proliferation isn’t really the goal. Maybe the conquest of Iranian oil is the goal. And maybe the Iranians know that goal won’t change, whoever is in the White House as of January 20, 2009.

1 Transcript of Obama’s speech at AIPAC, NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

2 Robert Fisk: New actor on the same old stage, The Independent, Aug 2, 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-new-actor-on-the-same-old-stage-883270.html

3 Joe Conn, “The Christian Coalition: Born Again?” Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Nov. 2002. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5492&abbr=cs_

4 “The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party: Dispensationalism.” Theocracy Watch, http://www.theocracywatch.org/christian_zionism_dispensationalism.htm

5 “The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party: Christian Zionism.” http://www.theocracywatch.org/ christian_zionism.htm

6 Baha Abushaqra, “The Heresy of Jewish Zionism”, http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/topic1.asp?topic_id=1315228

7 World War II, Encyclopedia, History.com, http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140

8 John F. Mahoney, “Israel’s Anti-Civilian Weapons,”January – March  2001 The Link – Volume 34, Issue 1, as reprinted on Americans for Middle East Understanding, http://www.ameu.org/printer.asp?iid=46&aid=81

9 “…any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Transcript of Obama’s speech at AIPAC, NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

10 Transcript of Obama’s speech at AIPAC, NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

11 “Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear-weapon States,”… Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

12 Summary, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sept. 15, 2008,

p. 6.

13 Summary, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement, p. 6.

14 Bushehr, Global Security.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm

Posted in Election '08, Obama | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Report: ES&S Voting Machines Can Be Maliciously Calibrated to Favor Specific Candidates

Posted by kelliasworld on November 3, 2008

[From WIRED Magazine’s Threat level blog]

By Kim Zetter EmailNovember 03, 2008 | 3:51:06 PMCategories: E-Voting, Election ’08

Touchscreen voting machines at the center of recent vote-flipping reports can be easily and maliciously recalibrated in the field to favor one candidate in a race, according to a report prepared by computer scientists for the state of Ohio.

Peb_emulation_on_ess_machine At issue are touchscreen machines manufactured by ES&S, 97,000 of which are in use in 20 states, including counties in the crucial swing states of Ohio and Colorado. The process for calibrating the touchscreens allows poll workers or someone else to manipulate specific regions of the screen, so that a touch in one region is registered in another. Someone attempting to rig an election could thus arrange for votes for one candidate to be mapped to the opponent.

“If one candidate has a check box in one place and a different candidate has it in a different place, you can set it up so that if you press on one candidate it gets recorded for another candidate,” said Matt Blaze, a computer scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who led one of three teams that co-wrote the report (.pdf) last year. “But if you press on the other candidate, it gets recorded correctly for that candidate. You can make it work perfectly normally in most of the screen, but have it behave the way you want in small parts of it.”

The report illustrates a shocking vulnerability in a charged race that’s already seen voter-fraud allegations on both sides, and an ugly spate of voter suppression tactics targeting Democratic voters in several states. The behavior described is also eerily similar to problems already observed in early voting on ES&S machines and during a 2006 race in Sarasota, Florida.

Such miscalibration, however, would affect any other candidate or race that uses the same part of the screen on a different page of the ballot; and an alert voter would likely notice the check mark appearing next to the wrong candidate’s name.

Blaze said the calibration function on the ES&S machine isn’t password-protected, making it easy for a poll worker — or even a voter — to access the calibration menu in the middle of an election using a PEB device (Personalized Electronic Ballot), which election officials insert in a port on the face of the machine. A PEB might be stolen or purchased online, or an intruder can simulate a PEB by using a Palm Pilot or other handheld device with an infrared port.

With no more than a minute’s access to a voting machine, someone could recalibrate the screen, and to observers the action would be indistinguishable from the normal behavior of a voter in front of a machine or of a poll worker starting up a machine in the morning, said Blaze, who discusses the issue on his blog.

Voters have recently complained in a number of states about vote-flipping occurring on touchscreen voting machines made by ES&S. Voters in West Virginia and Texas complained that when they tried to vote for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, their ES&S machine registered a vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain instead. Voters in Tennessee complained of the opposite occurring — that when they tried to vote for McCain, their ES&S machine registered a vote for Obama instead.

The problem in West Virginia was presumed to be calibration issues with the machine that can occur when the machine is moved or jostled or used for long periods of time without being recalibrated. Secretary of State Betty Ireland directed election officials in 34 counties where the ES&S machines are used to recalibrate their machines every morning during early election and on Election Day.

Voters who complained about the vote-flipping have said that after several tries they were able to get the screen to successfully register their vote for the candidate they selected. Blaze said that in a scenario involving a malicious calibration, the attacker would essentially shrink or move the region on the screen that is connected to a specific candidate so that voters hit that region only after several attempts touching areas around the candidate. But voters might also find the “sweet spot” for the candidate in the same way if the machine simply fell out of calibration naturally.

Blaze said it’s impossible to know, from the information that’s been published about the vote-flipping incidents, whether the calibration issue is a naturally-occurring one or one that has been aided.

“There is nowhere near enough information from what I’ve seen to conclude that malicious calibration is actually what’s going on, but we can’t rule it out either,” Blaze said.

A West Virginia election official recently demonstrated on video how to calibrate an ES&S machine.

A computer science professor at Auburn University has a different take on what might be occurring with the vote-flipping reports.

Juan Gilbert, who directs the Human Centered Computing Lab at Auburn University in Alabama, said he believes the problem is a usability issue coupled with bad ballot design. He said that on ballots that use a windowbox design with the candidate’s name inside a windowbox on the screen, voters tend to touch on the candidate’s name, rather than the center of the windowbox. If the windowboxes for two candidates are placed too closely together on top of each other, a voter who casts a ballot for the candidate in the lower box is likely to press on the area between the two boxes, causing the machine to register a vote for the candidate in the upper box.

Blaze said that Gilbert’s theory is entirely plausible.

“This may not be a tech problem at all,” Blaze said. “It may in fact be that some of what is being reported may be usability and user interface issues. In order to figure out what’s going on in a particular case, though, you have to look at the exact ballot design and exact machine configuration in each case.”

Blaze added that due to the recent reports from voters who have experienced problems with machines, other voters are very much on alert and may have a tendency to attribute any problem they experience with the machines to vote flipping. But that shouldn’t keep them from reporting it.

“If it is a calibration problem — whether malicious or not — it’s important that a voter who thinks that that is going on report it and not just go home and complain about it later. If there is a miscalibration, it can be fixed right then and there … in the field.”

ES&S did not immediately return a phone call on the issue Monday.

Image of voting machine from EVEREST report courtesy of Ohio Secretary of State

Posted in Election '08, Electronic Voting | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

How McCain Could Win

Posted by kelliasworld on November 3, 2008

[I disagree with Palast’s take that you should not vote provisionally. It beats walking away empty-handed because they have to account for the provisional votes and some of them will actually be counted. But the rest of this article is good. — KR]

by: Greg Palast, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Two Obama canvassers prepare their pitch before knocking on registered Republicans’ doors in Arvada, Colorado. (Photo: Kevin Moloney / The New York Times)

It’s November 5 and the nation is in shock. Media blame it on the “Bradley effect”: Americans supposedly turned into Klansmen inside the voting booth, and Barack Obama turned up with 6 million votes less than calculated from the exit polls. Florida came in for McCain and so did Indiana. Colorado, despite the Democrats’ Rocky Mountain high after the Denver convention, stayed surprisingly Red. New Mexico, a state where Anglos are a minority, went McCain by 300 votes, as did Virginia.

That’s the nightmare. Here’s the cold reality.

Swing state Colorado. Before this election, two Republican secretaries of state purged 19.4 percent of the entire voter roll. One in five voters. Pfft!

Swing state New Mexico. One in nine voters in this year’s Democratic caucus found their names missing from the state-provided voter registries. And not just any voters. County by county, the number of voters disappeared was in direct proportion to the nonwhite population. Gore won the state by 366 votes; Kerry lost it by only 5,900. Despite reassurances that all has been fixed for Tuesday, Democrats lost from the list in February told me they’re still “disappeared” from the lists this week.

Swing state Indiana. In this year’s primary, ten nuns were turned away from the polls because of the state’s new voter ID law. They had drivers’ licenses, but being in their 80s and 90s, they’d let their licenses expire. Cute. But what isn’t cute is this: 566,000 registered voters in that state don’t have the ID required to vote. Most are racial minorities, the very elderly and first-time voters; that is, Obama voters. Twenty-three other states have new, vote-snatching ID requirements.

Swing state Florida. Despite a lawsuit battle waged by the Brennan Center for Justice, the state’s Republican apparatchiks are attempting to block the votes of 85,000 new registrants, forcing them to pass through a new “verification” process. Funny thing: verification applies only to those who signed up in voter drives (mostly black), but not to voters registering at motor vehicle offices (mostly white).

And so on through swing states controlled by Republican secretaries of state.

The Ugly Secret

Here’s an ugly little secret about American democracy: We don’t count all the votes. In 2004, based on the data from the US Elections Assistance Commission, 3,006,080 votes were not counted: “spoiled,” unreadable and blank ballots; “provisional” ballots rejected; mail-in ballots disqualified.

This Tuesday, it will be worse. Much worse.

That’s what I found while traveling the nation over the last year for BBC Television and Rolling Stone Magazine, working with voting rights attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This we guarantee: there will be far more votes disappeared by Tuesday night than the three million lost in 2004. A six-million vote swipe, quite likely, shifts 4 percent of the ballots, within the margin of error of the tightest polls.

Begin with this harsh statistic: since the last election, more than ten million voters have been purged from the nation’s vote registries. And that’s just the start of the steal.

If the noncount were random, it wouldn’t matter. But it’s not random. A US Civil Rights Commission analysis shows that the chance a black voter’s ballot will “spoil” or be blank is 900 percent higher than a white voter’s.

Does that mean the election’s stolen and you should forget voting and just go back to bed for four years? Hell, no. It means you vote and vote smart, learn how to pry their filthy little hands off your ballot (there’s a link at the end).

How to Steal an Election in Five Easy Steps

Here’s how they can pull off the steal. Take out your calculator and add it up.

Step One: The “Dumpster” Vote – Purge Voters, Provisional Ballots

Ten million voters purged? What the hell is going on here? Why are we removing millions from the voter rolls?

The answer is the GOP’s secret weapon, the Help America Vote Act, signed by George Bush in 2002. When Bush tells us he’s going to help us vote, look out. But Democrats didn’t. They signed on to the GOP bill, believing this “reform” law would prevent “another Florida.” Instead, “Help America Vote” Floridated the entire nation.

Here’s how: Help America Vote empowered secretaries of state to remove fraudulent and suspicious voters from the voter registries. It was the trick used by Katherine Harris in Florida in 2000 when she purged “felon” voters. Except they weren’t felons. And now her GOP confrères are doing it in dozens of states, calling folks felon voters, “inactive” voters, suspect voters, whatever.

Take Colorado. The GOP didn’t exactly trumpet it’s erasing 19.4 percent of voters’ names. It was, as detectives say, “hidden in plain sight,” buried deep inside a US Elections Assistance Commission administrative report, among tables of mind-numbing stats through which I was trawling some months ago. (I used to teach statistics at Indiana University, so I enjoy reading matrices like others enjoy novels.)

For BBC TV and Rolling Stone, I asked the current Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman, “Why all the purging?” No answer, not a word, stonewalled even when I flew into Denver and stood outside his door. He was, I guess, too busy preparing to count his own votes as Republican candidate for Congress.

So, where are the Democrats? That’s the really scary part. I spoke with Paul Hultin, appointed by Colorado’s Democratic governor to the state’s Election Reform Commission. Hultin’s a terrific attorney. He knows, and says, that Help America Vote was a law “born in corruption,” but he’s spent his time on Colorado’s voting machines, which he knows are busted. He’s the Democrats’ expert, and he didn’t know that a fifth of his state’s voters had vanished from the voter rolls.

Well, don’t worry. Hultin’s official committee will be holding hearings on the voting debacle in Colorado … on November 19.

Then there’s New Mexico, with those one in nine Democrats missing. I spoke with San Miguel County elections supervisor, Democrat Pecos Paul Maez, who was none too happy that 20 percent of his voters, the majority poor and Hispanic, were not on the voter rolls, especially because he was one of the missing. He blamed the state for using a suspect contractor to tag names for the Big Purge, as required by the Help America Vote Act. The contractor that conducted the New Mexico purge, Electronic Systems and Software (ES&S), was founded by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

The company and state choose the purging “algorithms,” those mathematical formulae that, depending on how you tweak them, can go through a voter roll like a hot knife through cream cheese.

So, what happens to the purged voters? They’re told to scram when they arrive to vote or, if they squawk, they get a “provisional” ballot on which they can pretend to vote.

Now, here are the facts about provisionals: they don’t get counted. And there are lots of them. The great unreported story of the 2004 election was that there were more than three million voters shunted to provisional ballots. Over a million (1,090,000) were never counted, just chucked in the dumpster. That’s what caused Kerry to lose New Mexico, Iowa and Ohio. This time, because of Help America Vote and a Republican campaign to challenge voters, the number of provisionals will rise, as will rejections.

Whatever keeps you from getting a real ballot – purged name, for example – keeps you from having the provisional counted as well. That’s because Democrats won the right of every voter to get a provisional ballot, but not the right to have that ballot counted. And how many will go uncounted? Double the 1.1 million loss in 2004 – not just because of the GOP’s purge-mania, but because of a vicious little codicil in Help America Vote that went into effect since the last election …

Step Two: “Verification” (and Elimination) of New Voters

For the first time in US history, new voters will face special new obstacles to voting. When we say “new” voters, let’s be clear – we mean Obama voters. A Wall Street Journal poll shows new voters prefer Obama by an eye-popping three to one (69 percent to 20 percent).

So, the Republican game plan is simple: don’t let new voters vote. There are three steps to this block-and-steal tactic. First, under the new law, states can deny new voters registration on the grounds their names can’t be verified against government data files. Sounds reasonable, but it’s not, because we don’t have Soviet-style citizenship files in the US. The Social Security Administration is rejecting nearly half of the names submitted because there is no multi-state compatible tracking system. Of course, the Republicans know that.

New voter verification losses are huge. In California, a Republican secretary of state rejected 42 percent of new registrations, a trick discovered by his Democratic successor, Debra Bowen. She told me most of the rejected vote applicants had Hispanic, Vietnamese, Islamic and other “odd” names – odd, that is, for Republicans.

It used to be that you filled out a registration card and, bingo, you were registered. Not any more. That’s also what happened in Florida to the 85,000 new registrants. They were victims of strict “matching” algorithms. Other states are also playing the “match” game. The result is voters will find themselves simply missing (or in some states, required to show extra ID – another horror show we’ll discuss below). But don’t worry, a of couple million new voters will get provisional ballots. That way, they can practice filling out their ballots for the day when democracy returns to America.

Step Three: New ID Laws

Karl Rove said, “I go to the grocery store and I wanna cash a check to pay for my groceries I gotta show a little bit of ID. Why should it not be reasonable … at the voting place they ought to be able to prove who they are by showing some form of ID.” And so, while buying his Pampers, Rove came up with a game-winner for the GOP.

Karl, let me answer your question. The reason, according to several studies by the Bush administration itself, is that lots of folks don’t have government ID. Some are nuns, some are poor, lots are brown or old. I was on Fox TV with Lady Rothschild a couple of weeks ago. The lady, a McCain supporter, approved of the ID requirement – and was truly surprised to find out that some poorer Americans don’t have passports. “Why don’t they?” her Fox-mates asked, incredulous. Well, not every barrio kid has just returned from his estate outside London.

Rove knows that. He certainly knows that, for example, Professor Matthew Barreto of the University of Washington found that 10 percent of white voters in Indiana don’t have the needed ID. And, for blacks, it’s about double – 19 percent lack the ID required to vote. New ID laws will add to the turn-aways, provisionals and rejecteds on Tuesday by at least two million – and that’s way conservative, assuming the new laws in swing states are only one-fourth as restrictive as Indiana’s.

Step Four: Spoiling Ballots

Your chad gets hung. The touch screen doesn’t like your touch. Or, your paper ballot had that extra mark that made the machine spit out your ballot like day-old beer with a cigarette floating in it.

In the last election, 1,389,231 ballots were zeroed-out, “spoiled,” because the machines lost them, couldn’t read them, mangled them or simply didn’t register them. But it’s not random, not by a long shot. In New Mexico in 2004, I found that 89 percent of blank and spoiled ballots were cast in minority precincts – a sum of uncounted ballots way over the Republican “victory” margin in that state.

Another study shows that Hispanics’ vote choices are six times as likely to fail to be recorded when they vote on computers versus paper ballots.

In the primaries and in 2006, the “spoilage” and blank (“undervote”) totals were horrific. There is every reason to believe the “spoilage” total will be as high as in the 2004 election. That is, no less than one million votes, overwhelmingly in minority districts, will just vanish. (“Spoilage” is not the same as vote tampering. There is the concern that “black-box” computers will switch your vote via an evil software hack job. That’s another matter completely – and more votes lost if it happens, a sum I’m not including here.)

Step Five: Rejecting Mail-In Ballots

You’ve mailed in your ballot. Last time around, over half a million mail-in ballots were junked: everything from postage due to not liking your signature to a circle checked, not filled in. Mailing in a ballot is playing Russian roulette with it. About a tenth get junked.

This time, the GOP has a new game for trashing your absentee vote. In states like Florida, some FTFs (First-Time Federal voters) will have to include a photocopy of their ID in with the absentee ballot. Bet you didn’t know that. They’re counting on you not knowing that. In Florida, for example, you have to place the ID photocopy outside the inner envelope, but inside the outer envelope – Got that? – or your vote is toast. I’ve spoken to one student voter, who lost his vote for failing to use the two envelopes – though he only received one. (Have a mail-in ballot in hand? Then, for God’s sake, walk it in to the polling place or local board of elections. Sign, seal and deliver it in person.)

You may get it right, but historic data suggest that, when combining the FTF games with the usual mail-in cock-ups, Obama will lose another million votes to mail-in disqualifications.

Exit Polls and Exit Stratagems

These millions of uncounted ballots – spoiled ballots, provisional ballots rejected, absentee ballots disqualified – fully explain the difference between exit polls (which, for example, gave Kerry Ohio in 2004 and Gore a win in Florida in 2000) and the official count. Exit pollsters ask, “Who did you vote for?” They never ask, and can’t know, “Did your vote count?”

How would they get away with it? Well, they begin explaining away how the “pollsters” get it wrong, how pollsters didn’t figure the “Bradley Effect” of lying, racist voters. They’ll tell us the new, young and Black Obamaniacs gave money, went to rallies – but never bothered to vote. But the real reason will never be whispered: They cast votes that just weren’t counted.

Will the election be stolen on Tuesday? No, it’s already been stolen. That is, several million voters are doomed to lose their ballots; most won’t even know it. Overwhelmingly, they are the poor, minorities, new voters – Obama voters. Does that mean McCain’s got it in the bag and you’re helpless? Not at all.

Don’t Steal Your Own Vote

In 2004, I and other investigators wrote, long before Election Day, “Ohio’s stolen.” We were deadly right.

It’s happening again. For six years, the Democratic Party has been snoozing through a quiet, brilliantly executed Republican operation to block, stop and purge voters by the millions. As New Mexico voting rights attorney John Boyd put it, “I don’t think the Democrats get it. All these new rules and games are turning voting into an obstacle course that could flip the vote to the GOP in half a dozen states.”

Karl Rove once said, “We have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored glasses.” He wasn’t complaining; he was boasting.

I know that the Obama campaign is not happy that I bring up the issue of a possible theft of the election. They fear voters will be “discouraged” by the possibility that the election is fixed.

Well, frankly, if you’re too bummed out by this recitation of facts and statistics to vote, then maybe you don’t deserve to vote, or to drive or to reproduce. Did Martin Luther King say, “I have a dream … so I’m going back to sleep”?

Votes can’t be saved by “hope” alone. There are simple ways to protect your own vote, from walking in your “mail-in” to refusing a provisional ballot. (You can download the list at StealBackYourVote.org, written with Bobby Kennedy, a professor of law.)

It comes down to this: Can the margin of trickery, vote suppression and ballot destruction – three to six million votes – be overcome? Yes. Because they can’t steal all the votes all the time. Two days before the election, John McCain is down by only 4 percent in some polls. But these are polls of “likely” voters. They exclude first-time and many low-income voters.

So, the answer to vote suppression is for something unlikely to happen – for the “unlikely” voters to simply overwhelm the statistical assumption of their laziness. As I’m sure Mr. Obama, a professor of constitutional law, could tell you: the best legal response to systematic vote suppression is to get off yo’ ass!

——–

Greg Palast is the co-author of “Block the Vote,” in this month’s Rolling Stone Magazine, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Palast and Kennedy are also co-authors of the investigative comic book, “Steal Back Your Vote.” Palast, who reports on election fraud for BBC Television, is a Nation Institute/Puffin Foundation fellow for investigative reporting. Prior to his becoming a journalist, Palast was a forensic economist, fraud investigator and taught economics and statistics at Indiana University. palast@gregpalast.net

Posted in Election '08, Electronic Voting | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

NBC Nightly News: Clearing up Misconceptions about Voting

Posted by kelliasworld on October 31, 2008

If you are eligible to vote and registered, call 1-866-ourvote toll free, if you are challenged. Cast a provisional ballot.

Posted in Election '08, Electronic Voting | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Monitor Election Problems Nationwide with OurLiveVote.org

Posted by kelliasworld on October 31, 2008

Search by State or County for Real-Time Voter Reports on Election Day

San Francisco – Reporters, bloggers, and voters across the country can monitor problems at the polls on Election Day on OurVoteLive.org, a project built and hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of Election Protection, the nation’s largest nonpartisan voter protection coalition, and its toll-free voter-assistance hotline, 866-OUR-VOTE.

OurVoteLive.org collects and analyzes reports from calls to the 866-OUR-VOTE hotline, which is staffed by hundreds of volunteers across the country. Tested during the presidential primaries, the site is already documenting over a thousand examples per day of voters needing information or reporting problems such as registration and identification issues, difficulties with voting machines, and polling place accessibility issues. Over 200,000 calls are expected to come into the hotline and be documented on OurVoteLive.org through Election Day.

“Improved transparency in all aspects of the electoral process is critical to ensuring accurate results as well as diagnosing systemic problems and helping voters,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “OurVoteLive.org is helping the Election Protection Coalition make that possible.”

In addition to call incident data, OurVoteLive.org also features maps, nationwide trend information, and an active election issues blog that will highlight important election incidents as they develop.

“OurVoteLive.org will allow us to help more voters more effectively,” said Jonah Goldman, director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which leads Election Protection. “We — along with election officials and the media — will be able track trends and identify problem areas quickly so that we can remove any barriers that voters face as they cast their ballots.”

Election Protection has more than 100 partners at the national, state and local level and is providing live voter protection services now through Election Day across all 50 states. On November 4, Election Protection will mobilize tens of thousands of volunteers, including 10,000 legal volunteers to monitor polling places, educate voters, facilitate a dialogue with local and state officials, provide legal support to poll monitors, and answer the 1-866-OUR-VOTE voter services hotline — a monumental undertaking designed to ensure smooth voting in November.

Posted in Election '08, Electronic Voting | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama: Change you can believe in…Not!

Posted by kelliasworld on October 30, 2008

[This article was originally published on Speaking Truth to Power. You can read the other parts by visiting that site or scrolling down this blog].

Part 3 – Israel and Iran

Which country comes foremost in US foreign policy, the United States or Israel? Sometimes it’s hard to tell. The Israeli-centric approach to US Middle East foreign policy, which is unfair to the Palestinians and dangerous to a United States dependent on foreign oil, will not change in an Obama Administration.

Which office is Obama running for?

On June 4, 2008, the day after Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, he spoke to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Here are some excerpts of that speech:

I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good Friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that they bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.

… I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea – that there is always a homeland at the center of our story. … We know the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security….Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. … Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.1

Great speech…for a candidate for Prime Minister of Israel.

Later in the summer Robert Fisk, renowned British journalist who has covered the Middle East for over 20 years, said: But hasn’t anyone realised that Obama has chosen for his advisers two if the most lamentable failures of US Middle East policy making? There, yet again, is Dennis Ross, a former prominent staff member of AIPAC, the most powerful Israeli lobby in Washington — yup, the very same AIPAC to which Obama grovelled last month – and the man who failed to make the Oslo agreement work. And there is Madeleine Albright who, as US ambassador the the UN, said that the price of half a million dead children under sanctions in Iraq was “worth it”, and who later announced that Israel was “under siege”. This must be the only time – ever – that a US politician thought Palestinian tanks were on the streets of Tel Aviv.2

Understand that Zionism is a political philosophy and is not the same as Judaism, which is a religion. One does not have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. In fact, Christian Zionists are prominent as supporters of and elected officials from the Republican Party.3 Some Christian Zionists, particularly the Dispensationalists,–the late Rev. Jerry Falwell was one–want Israel to claim all of Palestine because they believe that this is a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ.4 However, these Christian Zionists also believe that the Jews and all other non-Christians will be condemned on Judgment Day. So they don’t have any particular love for the Jewish people.

Jewish Zionism stems from the anti-Semitism Jews have faced in Europe and elsewhere. Jewish Zionists see Israel as the one place Jews can be safe.5 But not all Jews are Zionists, and in fact, Zionism is actually considered by many Jews to be a heresy.6 So being Anti-Zionist does not mean one is Anti-Semitic.

There are two kinds of Holocaust deniers. There are the fools and propagandists, like white supremacists and Iran’s President Ahmadinejad who claim it never happened or that far fewer Jews were killed than the history books say. There is certainly more than enough documentation of the atrocities to prove these fools wrong.

But there is a second, less publicized but more pernicious, form of Holocaust denial. One that many of us are guilty of. It’s the denial that overemphasizes the tragedy of the Jews and fails to comprehend the full scope of Hitler’s evil. While the Nazis made the Jews the scapegoats for Germany’s economic problems post WWI, Hitler also persecuted Slavs, Roma (Gypsies), trade unionists, Communists, homosexuals, who were marked with a pink triangle as Jews were marked with a yellow Star of David, and the disabled. He also thought blacks were subhuman, and while there were not many blacks in Europe, Rommel “The Desert Fox” operated in North Africa, as the Nazis desperately searched for oil with which to fuel their war machine, and fascist ally Italy held Ethiopia as a colony.

While we often hear about the 6 million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust, we seldom hear about the over 20 million citizens of the Soviet Union, military and civilian, who died during WWII,7 and we hear even less about the atrocities committed by the Japanese allies of the Nazis in the Philippines, Korea, China, Indonesia and other places in Asia.

And, of course, in 1938, Hitler felt confident that he could eliminate the Jews because “no one remembers the Armenians” who, to this day, are seeking recognition for their genocide in waning days of the Ottoman Empire.

US Presidents of both parties, and their advisers, for too long have acted as if the Jewish people were the only ones ever to be victims of genocide. But if humanity is to learn the true lesson of the Holocaust, we must remember that other peoples were genocided before WWII, and have been genocided since WWII, and that others besides the Jews were genocided during WWII. The true lesson is that “Never again” must be “Never Again” for everybody, or else it will be “here we go again” for somebody. The goal should be to eliminate genocide from human behavior, not to guarantee of survival of one set of genocide victims above all others.

For “Never Again” to be realized, the dominator paradigm of human relations must be overthrown in favor of a system in which the rights of all people, as individuals and as group members, are respected. There are at least two competing ways of achieving this outcome. One way is through true democracy in which there is a “one person-one vote” principle and where various groups can speak, publish and educate in their own languages, worship, or not, as they please, band together in whatever political parties they wish, and engage in economic activity without discrimination.

The other, which seems to be the way the world is going, is for each people to have its own land. But the struggle for independence or autonomy is a bloody one, full of ethnic cleansing (e.g. Serbia) or acts of repression by the dominant culture over the minority (e.g. Tibet and China). Israel is but one famous example of this “one people on its own land” approach, which, frankly, is outdated in places where colonial powers have redrawn borders to weaken the power of local ethnic groups to resist. (This includes the United States in its treatment of Native American nations). And that “to each his own” solution is never equally applied. The United States, whichever party is in power, has an overweening concern for the survival of Israel as a Jewish state; the Palestinians are an afterthought, the Kurds, who are the largest ethnic group in the world to not have its own state, are hardly thought of at all. And a worldwide list of peoples with their own nationalistic aspirations, ignored or trampled on by larger powers, is fairly long, indeed.

Why is Israel so special to the United States? For some it may be the idea that the establishment of Greater Israel fulfills a biblical prophecy, for others it may be guilt over the Holocaust and the US failure to help Jews trying to escape the Nazis. But I think a large part of it may be that Israel gives the United States a firm pied-a-terre in the oil-rich Middle East. The worldwide search for resources we can control is at the heart of US foreign policy. Or to put it simply, “what’s our oil doing under their sand?” Our hunt for resources helps make the world a dangerous place, especially for the people who live with those resources, whatever their religion or ethnicity.

If we really want to end genocide in the world, we should debate which approach will best achieve that goal: True democracy within existing borders, (e.g. with respect to Israel and Palestine, a one-state approach), or nationalism, with its penchant for ethnic cleansing. How many of you know that in the days before the State of Israel was founded, the Arabs were driven off land that was to become Israel. How do we know all this? From the Hebrew press. In an article published 13 August 1993 in the Israeli daily Hadashot, writer Sarah Laybobis-Dar interviewed a number of Israelis who knew of the use of bacteriological weapons in 1948. One of those interviewed, Uri Mileshtin, an official historian for the Israeli Defense Forces, said that bacteria was used to poison the wells of every village emptied of its Arab inhabitants. According to Mileshtin, it was former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who gave the order in 1948 to remove Arabs from their villages, bulldoze their homes, and render their water wells unusable with typhus and dysentery bacteria.8 As I said in an earlier article, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

The preservation of Israel as a Jewish state seems racist to me. And in some other context with some other people it might be openly called racist. Ethnic separatism is racist and a poor substitute for what we really need to finally eliminate genocide, ie. universal recognition of human rights. And in the end, what does Israel as a Jewish state say about the ability of the Jewish people to live and thrive in the world? The world is big; Israel is very small. If Israel is the only place where Jews can feel safe, albeit with a sense of safety derived from being armed to the teeth, including with the bomb, and with the US at its back, the Jews will have been ghettoized on the planet, only this time by their own hand. They will have created the very thing they fought to escape during the Nazi era.

The United States, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has been so committed to the survival of Israel as a Jewish state, that discussion of a one-state solution has been banished to the fringes. Considering the cost to America in money, reputation, and eventually lives, if the US goes to war with Iran, I think Americans ought to be having a lively debate as to the best way to eliminate genocide, starting with the Middle East. But Obama, as he indicated in his speech to AIPAC, will continue the course of the United States guaranteeing the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.9 So people who thought that a black man would be especially sensitive to racism will be disappointed in Obama’s Middle East policies, as they see the aspirations of the Palestinians to political and economic autonomy take a back seat to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

Nuclear non-proliferation and Iran

Nuclear non-proliferation is certainly a worthy goal. But building up the image of Iran as a nuclear threat is not the way to achieve it. In his speech to AIPAC, Obama said “Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low-enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are facts. They cannot be denied and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.10

The fact that cannot be denied is that Iran’s alleged support for terrorism and the increase of its threats against Israel is a non-sequitur to its stockpiling of 150 kilos of low-enriched uranium. Low-enriched uranium is the type used in civilian nuclear power plants to generate electricity. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory, but Israel is not, recognizes the right of every nation to develop nuclear power for peaceful civilian uses.11 So far, the IAEA “has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran”12 although it is also urging Iran to implement all confidence building measure with respect to the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.13

The US has argued as early as 1998, during the Clinton Administration, that Iran has so much oil it doesn’t need civilian nuclear power and therefore must be enriching uranium to get the bomb.14 But running the country on nuclear power means Iran would have more oil to sell at a profit on the international market in later years as demand increasingly outstrips supply, even though Iran would have to import uranium. The one way to be sure that a nation was not using civilian nuclear power as a cover for a weapons program would be for all nations to agree to ban civilian nuclear power. But that is not about to happen.

Demands of the US and Western Europe that Iran allow Russia to enrich its uranium for civilian use is an insult to the sovereignty and dignity of Iran. This is the equivalent of being told, “Don’t try to use a knife yourself. Let an adult cut your meat for you.” All this talk about Iran trying to get the bomb is about selling another war, getting Americans to accept the idea that an attack on Iran (either by Israel or by the US) is necessary and therefore acceptable. You will be branded unpatriotic (and anti-Semitic) for not supporting the squandering of more American lives and money on a war against Iran.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran has made some very intemperate remarks about wiping Israel off the face of the earth, but we know that the real power in Iran is the Guardian Council, not the President. Ahmadinejad’s comments may be more bluster than threat, for home consumption. Iran is having a presidential election in 2009.

But let’s assume the worst for a moment. Suppose Iran really is trying to get the bomb. Why would it want to do such a thing? Maybe because Russia, Pakistan, India and Iran’s enemy Israel have the bomb? (Israel never officially answers the question of its nuclear status, but it’s been an open secret that Israel has the bomb since Mordecai Vanunu was prosecuted in the 80s for letting that cat out of the bag). India, Pakistan and Israel are non-signatories to the NPT. Additionally, Israel’s guarantor, the US, has the bomb and has the ignominious distinction of being the only nation to actually use it. Might Iran be feeling a little insecure in that unstable region of the world, especially after it saw what happened to Saddam Hussein, even though he did not have weapons of mass destruction? The United States will never be able to effectively promote nuclear non-proliferation if it fails to see things from the point of view of its adversaries and if it continues to promote the use of force to get its way.

But maybe nuclear non-proliferation isn’t really the goal. Maybe the conquest of Iranian oil is the goal. And maybe the Iranians know that goal won’t change, whoever is in the White House as of January 20, 2009.

1 Transcript of Obama’s speech at AIPAC, NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

2 Robert Fisk: New actor on the same old stage, The Independent, Aug 2, 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-new-actor-on-the-same-old-stage-883270.html

3 Joe Conn, “The Christian Coalition: Born Again?” Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Nov. 2002. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5492&abbr=cs_

4 “The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party: Dispensationalism.” Theocracy Watch, http://www.theocracywatch.org/christian_zionism_dispensationalism.htm

5 “The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party: Christian Zionism.” http://www.theocracywatch.org/ christian_zionism.htm

6 Baha Abushaqra, “The Heresy of Jewish Zionism”, http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/topic1.asp?topic_id=1315228

7 World War II, Encyclopedia, History.com, http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140

8 John F. Mahoney, “Israel’s Anti-Civilian Weapons,”January – March 2001 The Link – Volume 34, Issue 1, as reprinted on Americans for Middle East Understanding, http://www.ameu.org/printer.asp?iid=46&aid=81

9 “…any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Transcript of Obama’s speech at AIPAC, NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

10 Transcript of Obama’s speech at AIPAC, NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

11 “Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear-weapon States,”… Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

12 Summary, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sept. 15, 2008,

p. 6.

13 Summary, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement, p. 6.

14 Bushehr, Global Security.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm

Posted in Election '08, Obama | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Obama: Change you can believe in… NOT!

Posted by kelliasworld on October 28, 2008

[This article was first published on the website “Speaking Truth to Power”. Please forgive any formatting errors as we don’t have the formatting software or expert personnel that professional online magazines have.]

Part 2: Foreign Policy

By Kéllia Ramares

During a debate on January 31, 2008, Sen. Barack Obama said, “I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place.”1 That is an excellent idea. But Obama’s other words, the Democratic Party Platform, and the advisers he has chosen for his foreign policy team indicates that the January statement is just a bunch of pretty words. He will not reverse the trend of American military interventionism that is so costly in lives, money, and American standing in the world. As Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has written, “much of the Democrats’ anti-war rhetoric has more to do with politics and anti-Bush sentiment than it does with ideological opposition to the use of force.”2

Yes, Obama wants to end the Iraq War but,

The 2008 Democratic Party platform flatly states:

Expand the Armed Forces

We support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by

27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between

deployments and decrease the strain on military families.3

Recruit and Retain

A nation of 300 million people should not struggle to find additional qualified personnel to serve.

Recruitment and retention problems have been swept under the rug, including by applying inconsistent standards and using the “Stop Loss” program to keep our servicemen and women in the force after their enlistment has expired. We will reach out to youth, as well as to the parents, teachers, coaches, and community and religious leaders who influence them, (emphasis mine) and make it an imperative to restore the ethic of public service, whether it be serving their local

communities in such roles as teachers or first responders, or serving in the military and reserve forces (emphasis mine)or diplomatic corps that keep our nation free and safe.4

Re-train and re-equip properly between deployments? Sounds like Obama plans to keep the military busy.

This indicates that Obama will only provide a change of tactics, not strategy. The Iraq War is bad, but war itself is a perfectly permissible tool of foreign policy. Rep. Ron Paul, who sought the Republican nomination himself this year, understands the issue. In an interview with CNN’s Kiran Chetry in August, he stated that there was no difference between the foreign policies of Sens. McCain and Obama:


“Their foreign policies are identical,” Paul explained. “They want more troops in Afghanistan. They want to send more support to Georgia to protect the oil line there. Neither one says bring home the troops from Iraq from the bases — you know the bases are going to stay there, the embassy as big as the Vatican, that’s going to remain. So their foreign policies are exactly the same. They’re both very, very aggressive with Iran. So I would say there’s no difference.”


“How would you handle these global threats, then, if it’s not to send our troops there and make sure that we’re protected?” Chetry asked.

“We create the threats!” Paul replied emphatically.5

American foreign policy will not change substantially until a president acknowledges that we create threats, and figures out that we all would be better off if the US didn’t act like a bully, or the world’s policeman. That is not likely to happen until the sheeple who attend Sarah Palin’s rallies, and who think patriotism means blind adoration of your country and its leaders, and that any finding of fault means you hate America, stop sitting on their brains. As long as Palin’s “Pro-America” small-towners and their brothers and sisters in larger cities who swallowed Bush’s post 9-11 propaganda about evildoers who “hate our freedoms” post “United We Stand” and “We are Resolved” signs in their shop windows, and “Support the Troops” stickers on their cars without ever asking “Stand where?”, “Resolved to do what?” and “Who benefits from our troops being in harm’s way?” this nation will always have cannon fodder for the politicians of both parties, who receive contributions from the corporations that are the true beneficiaries of American’s pro-war foreign policy. And while those politicians are bailing out Wall Street, the veterans are being tossed onto Main Street. Although solid numbers on veteran foreclosures are not available, RealtyTrac, a Web site that follows foreclosures nationwide, reported earlier this year that areas with large numbers of military personnel have foreclosures at a rate four times the national average.6

Obama does not believe that the “war on terror” is wrong. He sees a place for military engagement with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. For example, the Democratic Party Platform says: We cannot tolerate a sanctuary for Al Qaeda. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and NATO–including necessary assets like satellites and predator drones–to better secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents.7 (I will not here get into the issue of how real or how infiltrated by CIA Al-Qaeda might be). Even if you do not believe that the United States government let 9/11 happen on purpose, or to go even further, as I do, that the United States government made 9/11 happen on purpose, you should ask yourself: Does our continued military presence in Southwest Asia only increase the recruitment capability of terrorist groups? Let’s put it another way: If a foreign military force occupied your hometown, would you resist or aid the resisters, even is that resistance included violence? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

The Black Bill Clinton

The parallels between Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are truly striking. Both first sought the presidency while still in their forties. Both faced opponents a generation older. Both were raised in financially straitened households with an absent father. (Clinton’s birth father died before Bill was born and his stepfather was an alcoholic. Barack’s father left the family when Barack was 2). Both managed nonetheless to attend prestigious universities (Clinton: Georgetown, Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship and Yale Law; Obama: Columbia and Harvard Law). Both married strong, highly educated women and both fathered daughters.

The Obama campaign has frequently argued that a John McCain presidency would be, in effect, the third Bush term. Barack Obama appears to be a continuation of Bill Clinton.

At this year’s first debate among the Democratic candidates the moderator asked, “Senator Obama, you have Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser, state department policy director and navy secretary, among others, advising you. With relatively little foreign policy experience of you own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisers and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you’re promising voters?” As Obama fumbled for an answer, “Well, the,uh, I am…” Senator Hillary Clinton started cackling and said, “I wanna hear that.” To which Obama replied, “Well, Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well. I wanna gather up talent from everywhere.”8

Indeed, Obama has hundreds of advisers, paid and volunteer, in both domestic and foreign policy. But those closest to him are a recycling of previous administrations and Washington power politics. The change is in the offices they will sit in during an Obama Administration. If he really wanted change, he would surround himself mostly with the best and brightest of the men and women whose voices are not often heard in Washington. If you are reading this article, you have probably read, or listened to, or taken a class from, or participated in a project started by these new people. Recycling is generally a good thing, but it does have its limits.

The Vice President

Sen. Obama named as his running mate a Senate colleague who represents a state that has only 3 electoral votes, and whose own two presidential bids ended early. What does Joseph Biden bring to the ticket and to a potential Obama Administration?

The Vice-Presidency has become a powerful office in the last three decades, and, as Vice President, Joe Biden would be one of, if not THE closest advisor to President Obama. Biden’s age (68), length of Senate service, (first elected to the Senate in 1972) and status as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, give the campaign of the youthful (47), relatively inexperienced (first elected to the Senate in 2004) gentleman from Illinois a certain gravitas, especially in foreign affairs.

But it is a gravitas that suggests that the veteran Senator from Delaware will advise Obama to take traditional courses of action in foreign policy viz., heavy on militarism. While Obama was opposing the invasion of Iraq as a member of the Illinois state senate, Biden was in Washington carrying water for George W. Bush.


Biden claimed that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security. He held hearings on Iraq that excluded Iraq WMD expert Scott Ritter, who would have testified to Iraq’s lack of such weapons, or dissenters in the Pentagon and State Department who refused to march to the ideological beat of the White House war drums.9 Biden was calling for an invasion of Iraq in 1998, during the Clinton Administration.10


More recently, Biden has been the principal congressional backer of a de facto partition of the country between Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab segments, a proposal opposed by a solid majority of Iraqis.11 More generally, the Delaware senator has been one the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies.12


On privacy, a right that has lost much protection in the name of “national security,” Biden has proved to be a reliable friend of the FBI. In the 1990s, Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and introduced two bills, one called the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act,13 and the other the Violent Crime Control Act.14,15 Both mandated government “backdoors”:


It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law.16

Let me here remind people who think that the Democrats are the protectors of our freedoms that January 1993-January 2001 were the Clinton years and that Bill Clinton staunchly favored government backdoors into our computers.


While neither of Biden’s pair of bills became law, they did foreshadow the FBI’s pro-wiretapping, anti-encryption legislative strategy that followed.17


Zbigniew Brzezinski: Carter Redux


I recall some snickering when George W. Bush reached back into the Nixon Administration for two of his closest advisors: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. But Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama’s chief foreign policy adviser, is also a retread. This old Cold Warrior was born in Poland, and served as Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor. During the Carter years he promoted Islamic fundamentalism to counteract then-Soviet influence in the Middle East. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) a member of the Middle East and South Asia subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has said, “I remember thinking, ‘Why are we listening to him?’ (Brzezinski) He was the national security adviser for Jimmy Carter 30 years ago. He proceeded to talk to us about Iran, and I said, ‘Let me see, didn’t the ayatollahs come to power, didn’t we have this problem when you were in the White House?'”18


People who want to see the Taliban defeated because of what they have done to women should remember that Afghani women were among the freest in the Islamic world when that nation was under a Soviet-influenced government. And while we’re on the subject of Afghanistan let us remember that Obama’s much touted call for an end to the war in Iraq does not come from a desire to set America on a path to peace, but to enable the Pentagon to commit more troops to Afghanistan.


The Democratic Party platform contains a section titled Win in Afghanistan. It says: “Our troops are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but as countless military commanders and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledge, we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq, We will finally make the fight against Al Q’aeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. We will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions—with fewer restrictions—from our NATO allies.19


So progressive voters who want peace should realize that Obama, doubtlessly backed others on his foreign affairs team, shares the old hubris about American military might, even though history tells us that Afghanistan is a nation that has never been successfully subdued by an invading force. And current allies also doubt the likelihood of military success. For example, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, Britain’s commander in Afghanistan recently said: “We’re not going to win this war. It’s about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that’s not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.”20


Interestingly enough, Brzezinski does not share the enthusiasm for stepping up combat in Afghanistan.


We cannot try to create a modern, centralized, democratic state in Afghanistan from the top down using essentially foreign troops to impose such a solution. This collides with the sense of ethnic identity and religious sensitivity in a country that is very resistant to foreign intrusions. We need an altogether different approach. Some additional troops in the short run may be necessary, but the main emphasis has to be on decentralized political accommodation with the different elements which are collectively described as the Taliban but in fact representing a much more diversified group.”21

But Brzezinski wants to see the United States continue its imperial ways. He is the author of a book called “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”:


…it is correct to assert that America has become, as President Clinton put it, the world’s “indispensible nation.”…Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long, the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today’s Eurasia but of the world more generally.22

Indispensible nation? Does this mean that some nations are dispensible? Who gets to make that determination and on what basis can it be made? And what does he mean by forces of global disorder? Terrorists, or people who want self-determination rather than the dictates of the United States or the New World Order?

The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitrating role.23

Is there any wonder some people have resorted to terrorism in the face of this appalling imperial hubris?

Eleven years later, we see in the Democratic Party platform a section bearing Zbig’s imprint. It is titled: Lead in Asia:

We will encourage China to play a responsible role as a growing power–to help lead in addressing the common problems of the 21st century. 24

The Chinese have the world’s largest population, a 5,000-year-old culture, nuclear weapons and a trade surplus with the US that reached $75.3 billion dollars in the first half of 2008.25 That statement in the platform treats China like a junior partner in an American enterprise. Given the trade surplus and the fact that the United States depends on China to buy much of its government debt, such an attitude is presumptuous and patronizing in the absurd. But it also represents the Post WWII American exceptionalism that the stock-in-trade for people such as Brzezinski.

Brzezinski’s views on democracy and empire are downright scary:

A genuinely populist democracy has never before attained international supremacy. The pursuit of power and especially the economic costs and human sacrifice that the exercise of such power often requires are not generally congenial to democratic instincts. Democratization is inimical to imperial mobilization.26(emphasis mine).

Is that why the Constitution has gone into to shredder over the past eight years?

And:

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. (emphasis mine)27

Direct external threat? Like 9-11, perhaps? Does this sound like a man who would advise Obama to restore democracy at home to serve as an example to peoples abroad?

Of course, given the current financial crisis, caused in part by the disastrous and expensive invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as by the massive corruption and exploitation in the financial industry, it is questionable whether America can remain the world’s “indispensable nation.”


And what about Russia?


Zbigniew Brzezinski is joined on Obama’s foreign policy team by another Russia hard-liner, Michael McFaul. McFaul is a political scientist is the Hoover Institution on the campus of Stanford University, and McFaul is a former Russian policy adviser to George W. Bush.28 Mention McFaul’s credentials to someone who tries to argue to you that Obama is some sort of radical liberal. McFaul favors the expansion of NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia,29 something Russia opposes. Russia does not like the idea of its historical adversaries (NATO) expanding right up to its borders. Obama seems to be quite willing to antagonize the Russia bear by supporting NATO expansion.


Dmitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center in Washington, is a Republican but not a neoconservative.30 He has said, “Brzezinski and McFaul are not known for their desire to engage Russia on anything. If McFaul is representative of Obama’s foreign policy thinking, it’s difficult to imagine that there will be any sort of positive engagement with Russia if he is elected.”31


Failure to engage a nation with whom we disagree is not change. It is the standard policy, as anyone who pays attention to Cuba can tell you.


Simes’ prediction bodes ill, not only for US-Russia relations, but for relations between the US and Europe as Europe becomes more and more dependent on Russian energy supplies.


Where are we headed?


…To Be Continued

1 Spencer Akerman, “The Obama Doctrine”, The American Prospect, March 24, 2008,

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

2 Michael Rubin, “Obama or McCain, Iran stance won’t change”, The Australian, Oct. 3, 2008, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24437864-7583,00.html

3 Renewing America’s Promise: The 2008 Democratic National Platform, as approved by the 2008 Democratic National Convention Monday, August 25, 2008, Denver, Colorado, p. 34,

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

4 Renewing America’s Promise p. 34, http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

5 David Edwards and Muriel Kane, “Ron Paul: ‘There’s no difference’ between McCain and Obama”, The Raw Story, Aug. 28, 2008, http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ron_Paul_will_not_support_John_0828.html

6 Malcolm Garcia, “Foreclosure crisis falls hard on veterans”, The Kansas City Star, Oct. 21, 2008

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/852096.html

7 Renewing America’s Promise, p. 30, http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

8 Obama to Hillary: I look forward to you advising me,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w

9 Stephen Zunes, “Biden, Iraq and Obama’s betrayal”, Foreign Policy in Focus, Aug. 24, 2008, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492

15 Declan McCullagh, “Joe Biden’s Pro-RIAA, Pro-FBI tech voting record”, CNET news, Aug 23, 2008 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html

18 Eli Lake, “Obama Adviser Leads Delegation to Damascus”, The NY Sun, Feb 12, 2008,

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/obama-adviser-leads-delegation-to-damascus/71123/

19 Renewing America’s Promise, p. 29, http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

20 “British commander says war in Afghanistan cannot be won”, Reuters, Oct. 5, 2008,

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4940O020081005?rpc=64

21 Brzezinski: West Must Avoid Russia’s Mistakes in Afghanistan

Deutche-Welle, Oct. 16, 2008, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3715692,00.html

22 Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. (New York, Basic Books, 1997). p. 195.

23 Brzezinski, ibid. p. 198.

24 Renewing America’s Promise, p. 28, http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

25 China’s trade surplus falls more than 11% in H1, Xinhua, Oct. 7, 2008 as printed in The China Daily, Oct. 16, 2008, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-07/10/content_6834802.htm

26 Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 210.

27 Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 211.

28 Robert Dreyfuss, The Rise and McFaul of Obama’s Foreign Policy, The Nation, July 2, 2008, http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/334120/

Posted in Election '08, Obama, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Election Integrity Verification Project

Posted by kelliasworld on October 26, 2008

Dear Friends of Election Integrity,

With over 95% of U.S. votes counted by machines that use secret software
(such that no human being can know after an election what instructions the
machines actually executed), and with no scientific, independent
post-election manual audits in any state, and with no public oversight
over ballot security in most states – there is no reason to trust in the
accuracy of U.S. election results. Even the detailed methodology and data
of the media pollsters is usually kept secret from the public.

Please help our country by volunteering to help with this citizen exit
poll project (See below). It may be the only way to detect
suspicious-looking vote patterns caused by vote miscount that could
wrongly alter the outcomes of our November 4th election.

Kathy Dopp

The vulnerability of US voting systems to mass scale fraud has been well
documented, but little has been done to establish meaningful checks. Bad
as the last few elections have been, coming elections – including this one
– could be worse. “Improvements” such as early and mail-voting
See what’s wrong with them

and purging of voting roles
Voter roll purge in the 2000 Florida election

continue to undermine election integrity and a wide variety of vote suppression

portends poorly for what we may see on November 4.

One of the few ways to detect mass scale fraud under such conditions is an
Election Verification Exit Poll

Such polls have been used around the world to ensure election integrity
and have been used to overturn fraudulent national elections.

On November 4, Election Integrity is engaged in a two-part exit polling effort:

(1) Our 3rd professional poll to determine and document whether official
numbers reflect how people say they have cast their ballots, to
investigate any discrepancies and to establish exit polling as a meaningful
verification technique (see our May primary pilot project).

(2) a Citizens Exit Poll with the Election Defense Alliance
to:

* extend our ability to ascertain the veracity of official reported voting
results;

* detect specific indications of election fraud, which can be further
investigated;

* develop citizen polling as a means to detect and deter fraud; and

* to give citizens the tools to take control of their elections and their
government.

You can volunteer.

The Election Verification Exit Poll project

To properly prosecute these efforts, we need your help.

I realized a long time ago that the idea of self-government based on
pushing a button for one name or another every few years was inevitably a
fantasy. In the end, self-government, or for that matter, good-government
demands citizen involvement and oversight. So, please, volunteer

or donate.

Democracy depends on it.

Steven Freeman

http://ElectionIntegrity.org

About Our Exit Polls: Video: Interview about exit polls and election
verification

Posted in citizen exit poll, Election '08, Electronic Voting | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »