MOONSHINE ELECTION SERIES - Part 1

Black Box Voting has found "Moonshine Election patterns" in 16 states, which together carry 210 electoral votes.

Kentucky is a swing state where 87 out of 120 counties had a majority of Democratic registered voters, yet 106 out of 120 counties voted for Bush in 2000; 108 voted for Bush in 2004. It wasn't low turnout -- in fact, turnout has been going up. It was Kentucky politics: Registered Democrats went into the voting booth, Republican votes came out. (Details on website)

THE HUNT FOR JOE BOLTON

We discovered that a man named Joe Bolton has inside access to nearly 200,000 votes, most of them in the most troubled areas, locations that have a history of vote fraud, family-run government, drug-dealing sheriffs, what-have you.

In 23 Kentucky counties, citizens are required to trust their votes to someone named Joe Bolton, who is not an elected official and who is not even a government employee. They probably don't even know they're trusting Joe with their votes, because newspapers don't mention him and the county clerks have no line item for his checks in their published financial statements.

We went through all manner of investigations trying to even locate Joe Bolton, and those are chronicled in the short video and the full reports. Eventually we caught up with him. He has been programming the voting machines in his home in a remote location that even the county election officials don't know much about.

AMONG THE MOST INTERESTING COMMENTS:

Black Box Voting: Okay. Well you've been doing this for 35 years, has anyone ever asked you to do something that made you uncomfortable?

Joe Bolton: Oh, absolutely, get it all the time, I get that all the time you know. "Could you rig this machine?" And I don't know whether it's a conspiracy or a joke, you know, "Could you rig these machines for me Joe? How much would it cost me?" I've heard that for 35 years.

Joe told us all kinds of things, like the Appalachian tradition of vote-buying -- whatever you may have heard, it is alive and well.

Read More »

What does Al know that we don't? by Steven Weber

Why, given the opportunity that's been presented to him on a silver Prius, is this man not going to run for (and win) the presidency of the United States? If ever there was a clarion call to be answered it is this one: heed the will of the majority of the people, take back the yoke Bush and his cracked team of highjackers have used to steer the country into the ground and pull the ship skyward again.

Why, after his self-imposed banishment to the wilderness (suburbia), where he along with every other sentient being has observed the feckless evil of the current executive tenant and his Neo-posse, does he demur? Could he know that any run at the office would surely turn out to be a hollow chrysalis which, after gestation, would not incubate a butterfly but more likely belch forth a wingless, blind slug; that an educated, experienced, wise adult can lead more effectively and make more of a difference by being an activist/celebrity and riding a wave of pop-culture popularity, rather than relying upon the rusted and jury-rigged contraption quaintly referred to as the electoral process?

Maybe Al knows that America (to paraphrase Paddy Chayefsky) is a dying giant, that perhaps she is dead already. And the "business of government" is merely the scramble of organisms over the carcass's wan, flaking skin; any rumbles from within aren't the sounds of legislators engaged in constructive debate but the gasses issuing from the anuses of the bacteria digesting the sad corpse's putrefying innards. Are we destined to have the presidency so finally and utterly mediocritized that it no longer holds any attraction for the most qualified person in recent memory who would imbue it with the honor and prestige it -- and we -- deserve?

Well then, that's what Al must know. Because only that kind of realization would prevent him from participating. He says that politics no longer holds any allure for him. And really, why should it? He won an Oscar, for chrissakes. He's raised awareness of a real issue that actually effects us all in a way that makes him truly a uniter -- not a divider. He is the world's activist uncle. George Bush standing in front of his American Enterprise Institute portable backdrop can barely scrape up a strangulated hosanna from his meticulously vetted and dwindling audiences.

Having only once appropriated the toxic phrase "cut and run" to describe the result of catching my fishnet stockings on a partially extruded staple embedded in the side of a bed post (A long, dull story. Forget I mentioned it.) I am forced to resurrect it once again. It's an extremely ugly phrase, wielded by extremely ugly people but I will use it as that mediocre apparatchik/harridan Jean Schmidt never intended: to provoke the discouraged conscience of the marginalized true-patriot who would ably restore what has been so ignobly destroyed. On second thought, it's so shallow and inflammatory that I can't stand to apply it even in a good cause. There has to be some other way to convince this man of his worth. May be we need to convince him of our worth?

Because this country, for all its gaudy fascinations, for all its daily desperation to fend off reality by consuming goods from China as though they were oxygen atoms is also a country of souls betrayed by their loyalty to the idea of America the beautiful, the judicious and the brave. And it is not the loyalty itself that is at issue but those whom we have entrusted with it. A presidential election is not a parlor game, though it may resemble one far too closely. It is as close to being a sacred exercise as this secular republic asks of its congregants. We require a real leader now, one with a true understanding of the importance of why this country must function correctly and efficiently. We and the world depend on it. So here's your hat. And there's the ring. America needs you need to lead us now more than ever.

That's what we know that Al doesn't.

A wee bit pretentious, but effective.

link

Time Is Right for New Pentagon Papers

by Amy Goodman

Of the Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Mike Gravel is probably the least well recognized. His dark-horse candidacy may be the butt of jokes on the late-night comedy shows, but that doesn’t faze former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg: “Here is a senator who was not afraid to look foolish. That is the fear that keeps people in line all their lives.”

The famed whistle-blower joined Gravel this past weekend on a panel commemorating the 35th anniversary of the publication of the Pentagon Papers by the Beacon Press, a small, nonprofit publisher affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association. It was this publisher that Gravel turned to in 1971, after dozens of others had turned him down, to publish the 7,000 pages that Ellsberg had delivered to Gravel to put into the public record.

The story of the leak of the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times is famous, but how they got published as a book, with Gravel’s face on the jacket, reads like a John Grisham novel.

Read More »

If you are not familiar with The Pentagon Papers (1971), Daniel Ellsberg, and what part Sen Mike Gravel played in it, this article will lay it all out for you.

Bush's Fleurs du Mal
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 27, 2007

The president thinks he can save face if he keeps taunting Democrats as the party of surrender - just as Nixon did - and dumps the Frankenstate he's created on his successor.

For me, the saddest spot in Washington is the inverted V of the black granite Vietnam wall, jutting up with the names of young men dying in a war that their leaders already knew could not be won.

So many died because of ego and deceit - because L.B.J. and Robert McNamara wanted to save face or because Henry Kissinger wanted to protect Nixon's re-election chances.

Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. Iraq is in a civil war, with a gruesome bonus of terrorists mixed in. April was the worst month this year for the American military, with 104 soldiers killed, and there have been about 90 killed thus far in May. The democracy's not jelling, as Iraqi lawmakers get ready to slouch off for a two-month vacation, leaving our kids to be blown up.

The top-flight counterinsurgency team that President Bush sent in after long years of pretending that we'd "turned the corner" doesn't believe there's a military solution.

--MORE--

So many deaths; so little truth.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, 50, dubbed the 'DC Madam' in local media, has been arraigned in federal court on charges of operating a Washington prostitution service.

I think she's hoping some of her johns clients will step up to the media scrutiny to be a character witness for her and if that doesn't happen, someone will be forced to post the entire client list. Dream on, girlie. But stranger things have happened.

What is that old saying when you sacrifice yourself for others? You "Throw yourself on the, um, sword"?

Exclusive Report from Brian Ross @ ABC - link

Frank Rich, NYTimes.com article, 4/22/07

President Bush has skipped the funerals of the troops he sent to Iraq. He took his sweet time to get to Katrina-devastated New Orleans. But last week he raced to Virginia Tech with an alacrity not seen since he hustled from Crawford to Washington to sign a bill interfering in Terri Schiavo's end-of-life medical care.

Mr. Bush assumes the role of mourner in chief on a selective basis, and, as usual with the decider, the decisive factor is politics. Let Walter Reed erupt in scandal, and he'll take six weeks to show his face - and on a Friday at that, to hide the story in the Saturday papers. The heinous slaughter in Blacksburg, Va., by contrast, was a rare opportunity for him to ostentatiously feel the pain of families whose suffering cannot be blamed on the administration.

Tell it like it is, Frank.

Read More...

Yesterday, Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court did exactly what he selected them to do...

By upholding the Federal Abortion Ban in its entirety, the Supreme Court has not only supported an abortion ban with no exception for a woman's health, it has given the green light to the anti-choice movement's plan to outlaw abortion entirely.

In her dissenting opinion, pro-choice Justice Ginsberg, who called the majority opinion "alarming", writes "...[T]he Act and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court."

So how are we going to defeat this ban now that Bush's appointees upheld it? Simple. We're starting an all-out campaign to support the Freedom of Choice Act.

Here's how it starts: The Freedom of Choice Act is legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade into law, and guarantee the right to choose for generations to come. But this legislation is just the first step. To ensure we never face an attack like this again, we're not stopping until we've elected a pro-choice president in 2008!

Pro-Choice America


Suddenly 2008 presidential candidates are forced to declare their positions. Has anyone contacted YOU yet? Kate Michelman, who was president of NARAL Pro-Choice America for nearly 20 years, sent me an email to say the following:

This is one of the most important reasons all of us - but especially women - must be fiercely committed to electing a Democratic president in 2008 who will protect and defend our rights. And that is why I am so strongly committed to electing JOHN EDWARDS.

Read what he has to say about the Supreme Court ruling.

Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban.

"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."

Are we supposed to believe what we see on television about the Iran/British captured soldiers situation? I don't ask that you believe as I do. I want you to get more than one view.

Most of tv, if not all, is agenda-based. Some television may have detergent or votes to hawk which is expected. It's the demagogue driven television I worry about and is why we're asked to turn off our tv sets from time to time. If US television is where you get most of your news, you're right to be asked to turn it off. If you're wise enough to go outside the US for your news, I admire you for that. It wasn't easy before the internet with all it's global perspectives. So all this blabbering preface brings me to an article I saw on Independent, a British newspaper.

The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis

Exclusive Report: How a bid to kidnap Iranian security officials sparked a diplomatic crisis

By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 03 April 2007

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.

MORE...

Bill Maher: New Rules For Bush And Cheney

"Traitors don't get to question my patriotism. What could be less patriotic than constantly screwing things up for America? You know, it's literally hard to keep up with the sheer volume of scandals in the Bush Administration. Which is why I like to download the latest scandal right onto my iPod. That way, I can catch up on this week's giant fuck-up on my drive in to work." Read More

Watch the above YouTube piece from last Friday's show or read the same rant from the HBO site.

Hersh: New Pentagon Unit Developing Contingency Plan To Bomb Iran

In the latest issue of The New Yorker, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh reports that a special Pentagon unit has been charged in recent months with developing plans for U.S. air attacks on Iran. From Reuters:

Despite the Bush administration’s insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the March 4 issue. via

THE REDIRECTION
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

House Says No To Troop Build-Up

The Iraq War Resolution was just passed in the House of Representatives with the disapproval of Bush's 21,000 more troop build-up.

17 Republicans broke from party lines to add with the Dems 229 YEAs making a total of 246 with 182 NO votes. Beautiful. If we can have more of the same when the Senate votes tomorrow @ 1:45pm est.

More @ CSPAN

It Only Takes 41 Senate Votes to End the War. Republicans Show the Way.

Filibuster to End the War Now!

By JOHN V. WALSH

We hear over and over again that it "takes 60 votes to get something serious done in the Senate." That is a lot of malarkey. It takes only one senator to begin a filibuster against any bill. And then it takes only 41 votes to uphold that filibuster and prevent any proposed law from coming to the floor.

Thus, the present authorization for defense funding in the coming fiscal year can be stopped cold if it contains funds for the war on Iraq. And this can be done by just one courageous Senator, backed by 40 colleagues.

Let me propose the following scenario. Just one Senator, Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold or Robert Byrd, arises in the Senate and declares that he will filibuster the present defense authorization bill if it contains funds for the war on Iraq or Iran. That bill is then dead unless there are 60 votes (3/5 of the 100 Senators) to end the debate, i.e., to invoke cloture. That is it. Bush no longer has the funds to prosecute the war. He has to come back with a funding bill acceptable to the 41.

READ MORE »»

Molly Ivins, Columnist, Dies at 62

Molly Ivins, the liberal newspaper columnist who delighted in skewering politicians and interpreting, and mocking, her Texas culture, died yesterday in Austin. She was 62.

Ms. Ivins waged a public battle against breast cancer after her diagnosis in 1999. Betsy Moon, her personal assistant, confirmed her death last night. Ms. Ivins died at her home surrounded by family and friends. link

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on January 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!" link

One hellraising writer and feminist is gone far too soon and I already miss her.

DAFFY DOES DOOM
By Maureen Dowd

01/27/07 New York Times

Dick Durbin went to the floor of the Senate on Thursday night to denounce the vice president as "delusional."

It was shocking, and Senator Durbin should be ashamed of himself.

Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney. Delusional doesn't begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man.

Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he's right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

READ MORE...

[Stealth Lesbian has a far better post (& title) on Dying For Dick with detailed graphics.]