Thursday, May 31, 2012

Ok, Wait...What? Who Stifled What?

· ·

Monday, May 7, 2012

The Exclusivity Agenda: Tacit Complicity and Corporate Rule


In The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz lays bare with nearly overpowering evidence a number of myths permeating American society that an open mind will have pondered. Chapters three, six, and nine provide symmetry in creating one of many clear arguments put forth in this concentrated classic. Chapter three revolves around the myth of gender roles as relating to the individuals within “traditional” families and their relation to the state; six strips away methodically at the myth of state intervention being the ruin of this family; nine is a thorough dismantling of the idea that parents alone are responsible for their children and the unavoidable risks inherent in life. 
Finding one coherent argument in the book was much like dipping my hands into a box of treasures; I may have missed some rubies, but I made out better than I started. The primary truth she shares with us is that the nuclear family, which is held up on all sides as the foundation upon which all individual character traits rely and on which all of societal calm and prosperity rests  - indeed, where all morals and virtues come from - in fact is not in danger of collapsing, but instead naturally diversifying. This, given America’s history of exclusion, is a source of fear to those who profit from the lack of honest discussion. This diversification could be a source of strength for the individual in our state system if we re-discovered the strength of non-kin networks. Finding the proper role for government will mean more actual discussion, but until, through voter engagement, we can force corporations to participate more equally in taxation as a way to keep inequity from rising, any progress towards inclusivity will be moot.
In chapter three, Professor Coontz lays waste to the myth of “a traditional family.” This traditional family is supposed to be made up of mothers--excuse me, women--who are expected to be the domestic based givers of all affection and emotional validation, goddesses of altruistic nurturing, essential in the character formation of each and every individual and so all of society. Woe be to those who fail this ideal or are raised by those who fail, and further woe to the society that does not protect this role for moth—excuse me, women. Femininity in this role is required to “counteract capitalism” (56). Fathers are to always and only be competitive and arrange for provision/shelter, absent any sentimentality and incapable of intimacy outside the binding marriage. One major point she raises is that non-white, non-males and even those white males of lower classes have historically been seen as less fully human to the upper and elite classes (I believe this is class imposition) (48).
            Coontz points repeatedly at the history of humanity as not having required or even accepted these gender roles. Requiring such discordant roles from individuals and families puts the natural need for state intervention (redress, etc.) into an unnecessarily shameful light. This, as she puts it, is “foreign” (44). The origin of the word ‘family’ comes from the word ‘slaves.’ The concept evolved in pre-capitalist societies so as to recognize authority, not paternal or maternal structure. But the state here in America is presumed under the myth to exist for the purpose of protecting the idyllic, 1950s-era nuclear family structure. Such expectation, absent a comprehensive allowance for reality ( i.e., the fragmentation of our individual rights as regulated by the state), demands failure from the many for the benefit of very few. This occurs while we allow more power to private firms and corporations that are most-often owned by very old money.  A long-term trend towards  polarization in our politics and policy has long prevented reasonable solutions for forced inequity from being discussed, proposed or accepted.
            To continue living within these “traditions” without questioning them , one must  ignore and  avoid consequence of willful ignorance, be willing to hold inconsistent and even contradictory positions, and remain outright acceptant of the consequences (infanticide, abandonment, illegitimacy, etc.) we face as a whole for not dealing with these inequities. Coontz shows that the history of labor division in other cultures, and in our pre-Civil War society, relied not on gender based divisions but always helped create and reinforce culturally approved ways for each gender to receive and give intimacy inside and outside of marriage. These intimacies prove nonfamily reliance led as much as to American prosperity as any family structure (65). One consequence of “falling for” these myths that are so beyond complex is that dependence on the state and subjugation to any “higher” power emerge as the only roles an individual can fill. This cannot be healthy, or continue much longer without another violent realignment.  
The chapter six myth is pretty straightforward: since family is the basis for all morality and individual traits should come from the family alone, any need for state intervention comes from weakness, be it criminality or immorality. The need for outside intervention, says this myth, is due to an unhealthy reliance bred from families with poor morals or individuals with poor families. This weakness is effectively criminal, for it drains the state of resources with which to enforce morality, and breeds dependency on the government instead of the family. This has lead to the further collapse of the family…the myth that dies is that the nanny state (excessive government intervention) is the reason for the collapsing family, and the collapsing family (supported by the paternalistic nanny state) is the reason we cycle through booms and recessions…
One of the many problems/causes of inconsistencies we see is that all sides decry the “growing” nanny state. Each, however, are inconsistent in their position. She lays out the basic failings of each philosophy and their history of providing lone and incomplete solutions (124). Coontz is careful to point out liberal complicity in the selfishness of our system. Enlightenment thought and the rise of self-interest drove the rise of capitalism, and the desire  of those who benefited most from early capitalism to protect  their “privacy” led to the rise of the state. “Privacy rights” were never meant to be inclusive. Eugenics, for example, arose from “child savers” asserting Christian values, terrified that “unworthy families” would receive the benefits of government (132). As it stands, most families would prefer to be invaded by a doctor (145). To need this “invasion” puts you in opposition to the interests of the state, especially once the state took a position on which family structure to protect (140).
Coontz wins the day when she quotes education professor Joseph Featherstone: “An anti-statist position, pure and simple, is a tacit endorsement of rule by the giant corporations.” A clear example of this control is the 1978 Right to Privacy Act, which “severely restricted” federal access to “bank account records and credit reports, but exempted private employers, state agencies, creditors, and even solicitation firms.” Truly, “business policies regulate family life far more extensively” than the so-called nanny state (146). Down goes the myth!
            Chapter nine highlighted my own upbringing as being irredeemable to society and left me feeling repugnant. My experience was as a child saved by state intervention  - literally, by being adopted away as an infant from an abusive mother - but I’m not allowed as a parent to lean on what was for me a righteously  “paternalistic” state without exposing some “immorality” or proving my bastard status. This is both frustrating and alienating.  Parents, goes the myth (especially in light of the two mentioned) are the sole entity responsible for raising children amidst the collapsing society filled with at-risk families—this is a trap for failure and cannot change absent an honest dialogue. There is no normal, largely because any attempt to study and find a normal would/has left out some important considerations (211). There is no way to measure normal, but we do know that most abuse comes from inside the home, not some stranger danger (227). Normalcy in human familial structure historically comes from “co-parenting relationships” and “shared responsibilities;” the consequence of failing in those relationships depends largely on your class status (227). We survived for centuries recognizing “tacit communities,” a structure that in our state system is seen as less valid than the nuclear family, and so has been legislated to have less access to redress and equality of intervention. Our system is “hopelessly-biased toward one kind of family setting.” This bias leads to the failings or feelings of failure in parents, as the individual and family roles they have to live up to cannot in fact all be lived up to. No worries for the children of the extremely wealthy, though; they have “special advantages” in maintaining their success (227).
            For high and low income individuals, the “omnipotence” we are supposed to display as parents is more relevantly on display from corporate employers towards us (225). This creates in turn an inward and collapsing pressure on parents that trends towards divorce (though no evidence, again can show functionality suffering more under one familial structure than another).  Coontz draws a master stroke in pointing out that the discussion in America about parenting centers around impossible roles, incredible risk, blame to go around and always individual behavior is compared to the most tragic situation being dragged through the media at the time (228). The truly dysfunctional gets the attention and seems the norm…who to blame? Why, the collapsing family and the values we are not passing on to our children! Unfortunately, because we lack an honest discussion about these myths, those who suffer from severe risk and true dysfunctionality are in less danger of being “invaded” by a helpful societal force in part because they lack access to “social capital” (231). She closes her argument with the idea that all children can be loved by all of the adults in a society, and a transition to this ideal would be more healthy than our current inverted and imploding morass.
Instead, we see a continuing decline in open, honest and fair dialogue concerning very real risks to our Union. This reduction in discussion benefits an increasingly miniscule few who have no fear of failing or of being required to do the actual work that would be involved in failing to live up to the ideal (47, 227).  By establishing the nuclear family as a “state” unto itself separate from the “nanny” government, democracy (as I took the major lesson to be) is decaying from within our deep center as a result of this continual opposition. Each individual not a member of the “oppositional state” finds themselves stuck in a paradoxical role, forced to act in the best interests of capitalism, not the expansion of democracy. We see a paradox here that can only be rectified by a renewed allegiance to the idea of government as having a legitimate role in the life of the family and the individual.
            I was not just convinced by the validity of her arguments; I have carried this book with me everywhere marking it up since the beginning of semester. I am spending my summer reading her follow-up (The Way We Really Are) because I am determined to be ready to debate when, inevitably, my failings as an individual, a man, a husband, and a parent (especially in relation to the state structure) are called on the carpet. We have become consumers, not producers, and the major firms lead the effort to defund, privatize and decentralize the federal and eventually the state governments in the interest of our masters.  We are, whether we recognize this or not, a society of slaves to our masters. These undying corporate persons see individuals and families as a “species of property” and “not fully human” when not literally related, historically (126, 48). The words and some expectations may have changed, but privacy rights have never been truly inclusive; making rights equal and access to redress accessible is not in the best interests of capitalism, and so it (capitalism) is at odds with democracy. Unregulated capitalism decays democracy (123, 126, 129, 132, 135, 137 - 138).  Non-familial networks, in this light, are a human right.
“The increase in poverty…is entirely attributable to changes in taxes and government benefits rather than demographics” (260). While the “nanny” state may have grown larger (there is no doubt America has more government now than at its founding, and that this government is more inclusive than originally planned), our government today is literally controlled by families not exactly looking out for the best interests of anyone except that of their undying corporate sons.
By engaging in democratic participation and continuing education, each of us raise the chance of the other to be successful in overcoming these extremely unhealthy myths and their multiple effects on us as individuals, families, and as a whole society. Continuing to accept rising inequity as a consequence of trying to meet impossible expectations is unbearable, and I believe for democracy, unsustainable. Stock and trust bred by nativism, not mom and dad, rule America (111, 272). Let’s change that by establishing our own non-kin networks: that’s right…go make a friend!

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Is The Norquist Coalition Waterboarding America? Yes.

 This week I chose the article  because ALEC is part of a larger group of factions (a Coalition represented most clearly by the Taxpayer Protection Pledge) whose interests are met when the Constitution is more poorly enforced. Unless all members end and report on ALEC activities, unless the pledge is held as less than the Oath, the Norquist Coalition will defund the government entirely by mid-century. This, if it were successful, would be the bloodless coup of Christian Nationalist Conservatism, ending America’s standing as a power in the realm of Human Rights most particularly. As it goes, this is a “slow motion secession” (Howard Fineman).

In a "conversation that never happened" with noted Debunker/Author Chris Rodda, she expressed her trepidation that the theonomy we will find ourselves having codified here nearly already came to pass with the Pledge Protection Act of 2006 (introduced by stage three socialism cancer survivor Todd Akin). The question I asked in the conversation I never had that I just have to share anyway: is the ultimate intent of the theonomic right to criminalize the need for state intervention, even redress? As she explained it, this Act would have allowed Congress, not the Judiciary, to decide which cases the Supreme Court hears, all in the name of keeping ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. Given that the only document with explicit enforcement power is the Constitution, and that this act would have un-separated the powers given to the three branches co-equally, I surmise that the American people should at the very least be alarmed at this attempted coup (the representative that introduced this act is of course a signatory of the pledge.) 

If Charles Taylor can be convicted for committing crimes against humanity, I have to ask: what is using a religious ideology and political power gained through subversion and deceit while delegitimizing the elected President, to endorse a regime that ignores all but the rights of corporate people with the end goal of separating powers so that God alone has the power of intervention? Not attempting to overthrow conspiratorially? Not a war crime? Hmm. From Rodda at the time: “...May 17, 2005, a little over a month after Sen. Lautenberg tried to stop Bill Frist's David Barton tour, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) introduced the "Pledge Protection Act," an act that would have removed all cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance from the jurisdiction of any court created by an act of Congress (meaning all federal courts except the Supreme Court), and removed the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court "to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance...or its recitation." This act, so clearly an attempt by Congress to usurp the authority of the courts, passed in the House on July 19, 2006, by a vote of 260-167.” 

One example in a basket full of them. Reagan allowed the CIA to bomb the harbors of Nicaragua, to which the World Court issued an indictment Reagan promptly ignored (for example). That isn't exactly violating Pakistan's sovereignty to kill Bin-Laden. Defunding the Government will take that option off of the table -how to enforce the Constitution (enforce a claim of sovereignty) if no revenue comes in and the various states are owned outright (through unregulated services) by neo-foreign MNC’s? An overview of more recent strategy reads like this: Dilute and suppress the minority vote, strangle redress by redistricting (re: little churches everywhere), dominate state legislatures and accompanying bureaucracies with like-minded small government conservatives, (ALEC controls two-thirds of the state level lawmaking), refuse any federal Tax increases (re: Taxpayer Protection Pledge), privatize all services provided by the government (ALL)…this is done despite the Oath of Office, in service to a pre-Oath Pledge. All of the pretty words that we weep to see in the UN Declaration of Human Rights mean nothing without America as a shining light to read it by. A miniscule and unfunded federal government cannot provide this light. But Grover knows that. Those major funders Romney won’t reveal know that. 

The presumptive Republican nominee would overplay (as a pawn, even) the blind dissident who came to (who else?) the United States for help.—perfect example of stupidity disguised as bravo—Look, the stated goal of the  9/11 terrorists was to undermine our economy. If we don’t demand Keynesian policy, we are caving to terror. Got that, monetary fascists? We need new revenue, even new taxes, and not as a political or policy issue, but a human right issue—the people need stability-We’ve already seen two stolen elections for the (southern) strategy, what more will we need to see? Who saw what? Kim Kardashian? Octomom? Ooh, doughnuts. 

Finally, I saw Grover defending Apple this morning with an outright lie, putting out this half-truth: the current corporate tax rate is 35%, but the question is--why keep legal what Apple does? Is making what Apple does illegal, which is imperative for ethics and logic, not to mention the future of our American Democratic political process, mean breaking the Taxpayer Protection Pledge? Well of course, Commie! He dares to call it “stupid” to suggest they make a move on their own to pay more into the system that secures the rights of all, and says we see them moving overseas because of tax advantages there---so they do not see themselves as American, says the guy who would know. What do taxes pay for, Grover? And if force is, in your view, used, how that force is provided?

Conspiracy to subvert or overthrow is treason. Taxes are a necessity for peaceful transfer of power and protection of even the non-taxpayer, not a forced accommodation. If the violence of faction is warned against and allowed (in that factions are “allowed” because the strength of the Union is more enduring that that of the goal of those who might rise to oppose it)-- what then of the many headed faction with one mouth to suck the public teat dry? What then of the Norquist Coalition? Paul Weyrich, co-creator of ALEC, is named checked by Norquist on page 15 of “Leave Us Alone,” telling us a better understanding of the religious right in America can be had “by examining the life and work of Paul Weyrich”, a man who made popular the term “Moral Majority.” It is high time we reminded good people that the Moral Majority used Christianity/Christian activism to fight integration efforts as late as 1979. If one coalition stands to profit and seeks in search of that profit to defund the one enforceable document that protects human rights, then to end all government services by 2050 would clearly leave the United States gasping and gut-punched. Let me repeat….. Factions in collusion with intent to overthrow: war crime. Someone. Please. Tell me I am wrong. 

 P.S- Dear people who believe in “hard measures”:Torture is a war crime. Harboring torturers is criminal. We just have to be better than to knowingly vote to a return to these policies. Don’t we? Norquist has already made clear a Romney President would be a pushover for Congress, and is building a faction pushing to impeach President Obama when the Bush Tax cuts are not extended…how far towards drowning can our nation go before we realize air is far, far away? More specific question, answer: Is the Norquist Coalition waterboarding America? Yes. If you think this isn't happening, you are hereby invited to debate yourself while watching Rachel Maddow's continually exceptional coverage of "emergency manager" laws in Michigan.

Attempt to unseparate powers
Regardless of the merits, the government should not be in the business of subsidizing student loans.”
“Norquist is widely known in politics for creating a pledge, which many public officials have signed, that officials will not raise taxes for any reason. He founded ATR on the no-new-taxes premise.

The pledge has no expiration date, so Norquist works to hold members who signed it as early as the 1980s to their promise. The long list of prominent pledge signers has made Norquist one of the key forces pushing Congress on tax policy during budget battles.

At least 279 members of Congress have signed the pledge. That includes almost every Republican in the House and Senate, and three Democrats.

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is also a tax pledge participant, as The Hill has reported.” “But central to winning is keeping score. We must keep our eye on the goal of reducing the size, scope, power and cost of government at all levels. Measuring and reporting on the trend in government spending, regulations, government employment and State ownership of property will keep us focused and let us know if we are winning or losing the struggle.
Cutting the government in half in one generation is both an ambitious and reasonable goal. If we work hard we will accomplish this and more by 2025. Then the conservative movement can set a new goal. I have a recommendation: To cut government in half again by 2050.”
Peaceful transition of power “He said in a statement, “While we can and should work to defund Planned Parenthood and push back against government mandates that force Americans and religious institutions to violate their faith, violence against our fellow citizens has no place in a freedom-loving America.””


1.        May a city enforce an ordinance in a racially discriminatory manner?
2.        Does a law or ordinance granting a person or entity absolute discretion to grant or deny permission to carry on a lawful business violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Holding and Rule (Matthews)
1.        No. A city may not enforce ordinances in a racially discriminatory manner.
2.        Yes. A law or ordinance granting a person or entity absolute discretion to grant or deny permission to carry on a lawful business violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

“Police obtained a search warrant for the house, and within two hours, Freeman said, police uncovered a trove of illegal and stolen weapons: the AK-22, an Intratec TEC-9 assault pistol, a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, a 16-gauge shotgun, a fully automatic tommy gun, eight handguns, two inert grenades, ammunition and an expended rocket launcher tube.
Some of the weapons were found within a false wall in a child's room, Freeman said.
The tube is part of a LAW – Light Anti-tank Weapon – M72 A2 single-use weapon, Freeman said. It was a rare find, Freeman said – it was the first time in his law enforcement career he had seen one "outside of a 'MacGyver' episode."””
kept promise no new independent tax on > $250000
Dr. Perkinson once visited the Carol S. Vance Unit, a Texas prison that subcontracts with Prison Fellowship for programming. Inmates can opt into the program, but cannot be forced to participate. He was both discomfited and amazed by what he saw.
“On the one hand, it was flagrantly unconstitutional,” Dr. Perkinson said. “If you didn’t believe God created the earth in seven days, and not just that same-sex relations were a sin but so was masturbation, you couldn’t graduate from this program. It was almost Taliban-style. But it was the only prison of all that I visited in Texas that was permeated with love.” Labor in the “New South”
After the Civil War, the convict-lease system metamorphosed.  In the South, it became ubiquitous, one of several grim methods — including the black codes, debt peonage, the crop-lien system, lifetime labor contracts and vigilante terror — used to control and fix in place the newly emancipated slave.  Those “freedmen” were eager to pursue their new liberty either by setting up as small farmers or by exercising the right to move out of the region at will or from job to job as “free wage labor” was supposed to be able to do.
If you assumed, however, that the convict-lease system was solely the brainchild of the apartheid all-white “Redeemer” governments that overthrew the Radical Republican regimes (which first ran the defeated Confederacy during Reconstruction) and used their power to introduce Jim Crow to Dixie, you would be wrong again.  In Georgia, for instance, the Radical Republican state government took the initiative soon after the war ended.  And this was because the convict-lease system was tied to the modernizing sectors of the post-war economy, no matter where in Dixie it was introduced or by whom.”,_the_age_of_obama_as_a_racial_nightmare/
Moral Majority---
Few groups in our history are as fascinating and mysterious as the Ku Klux Klan. Its story is one of violence, political manipulation and intrigue, absurdity, and mesmerizing organizational and propaganda skills. Through shrewd political tactics and powerful leadership, the Klan has often been a pot...
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · 13 minutes ago ·
Soup McGee Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our ... - Google Books Result Norquist - 2009 - History - 360 pages
Groups like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition did not bring evangelicals ... the life and work of the man who truly brought it into being: Paul Weyrich.
Soup's Auntie OxyMoron: As California Goes, So Goes the Nation ...
Jul 5, 2011 – Leave Us Alone, Norquist's book, is an attempt to reach out to the moderate ... Paul Weyrich, who coined the popular phrase “moral majority,” ...
You've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 10/27/11
Republican theory of voter - YouTube
0:39 0:39 31, 2010 - 39 sec - Uploaded by mr100b
Grover Norquist Discusses "Leave Us Alone"by RickReviewsBooks351 views · Paul Weyrich - Goo-Goo ...
More videos for moral majority weyrich norquist "leave us ... »
A new film exposes how the billionaire political donors backed resegregation in Wake County, North Carolina.
11 minutes ago · Like ·
Soup McGee “But central to winning is keeping score. We must keep our eye on the goal of reducing the size, scope, power and cost of government at all levels. Measuring and reporting on the trend in government spending, regulations, government employment and State ownership of property will keep us focused and let us know if we are winning or losing the struggle.
Cutting the government in half in one generation is both an ambitious and reasonable goal. If we work hard we will accomplish this and more by 2025. Then the conservative movement can set a new goal. I have a recommendation: To cut government in half again by 2050.”
In the 1950s, conservatives said one of their major goals was to reduce or elimi...See More
10 minutes ago · Like ·
Soup McGee And I can't tell the difference between ABC news, Hill Street Blues and a preacher on the old time gospel hour stealing money from the sick and the old. Well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister.---if you don't know that's bono, I'm sorry---
5 minutes ago · Like
Soup McGee weyrich-""I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."[37][38]"
2 minutes ago · Like
Soup McGee -----------"The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America

It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.

Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.

As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe “… that government …derives its moral authority from God. Government is the ‘minister of God’ with powers to ‘revenge,’ to ‘execute wrath,’ including even wrath by the sword…”[3]

George W. Bush began to wield the sword of God’s revenge with relish from the beginning of his administration, but most of us missed the sword play. I have taken the liberty to paraphrase an illustration from Leo Strauss, the father of the neo-conservative movement, which gives us a clue of how the hiding is done:

“One ought not to say to those whom one wants to kill, ‘Give me your votes, because your votes will enable me to kill you and I want to kill you,’ but merely, ‘Give me your votes,’ for once you have the power of the votes in your hand, you can satisfy your desire.”[4]

Notwithstanding the advice, the President’s foreign policy revealed a flair for saber rattling. He warned the world that “nations are either with us or they’re against us!” His speeches, often containing allusions to biblical passages, were spoken with the certainty of a man who holds the authority of God’s wrath on earth, for he not only challenged the evil nations of the world, singling out Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea as the “axis of evil,” but he wielded the sword of punishment and the sword of revenge against his own people: the American poor and the middle class who according to the religious right have earned God’s wrath by their licentiousness and undisciplined lives."
It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington ...See More
about a minute ago · Like ·
Soup McGee "Yet strangely enough, the official tally gave Bush the election. Here are some examples of how the GOP “victory” was secured.

—In some places large numbers of Democratic registration forms disappeared, along with absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Sometimes absentee ballots were mailed out to voters just before election day, too late to be returned on time, or they were never mailed at all.

—Overseas ballots normally reliably distributed by the State Department were for some reason distributed by the Pentagon in 2004. Nearly half of the six million American voters living abroad—a noticeable number of whom formed anti-Bush organizations—never received their ballots or got them too late to vote. Military personnel, usually more inclined toward supporting the president, encountered no such problems with their overseas ballots.

—Voter Outreach of America, a company funded by the Republican National Committee, collected thousands of voter registration forms in Nevada, promising to turn them in to public officials, but then systematically destroyed the ones belonging to Democrats.

—Tens of thousands of Democratic voters were stricken from the rolls in several states because of "felonies" never committed, or committed by someone else, or for no given reason. Registration books in Democratic precincts were frequently out-of-date or incomplete.

—Democratic precincts—enjoying record turnouts—were deprived of sufficient numbers of polling stations and voting machines, and many of the machines they had kept breaking down. After waiting long hours many people went home without voting. Pro-Bush precincts almost always had enough voting machines, all working well to make voting quick and convenient.

—A similar pattern was observed with student populations in several states: students at conservative Christian colleges had little or no wait at the polls, while students from liberal arts colleges were forced to line up for as long as ten hours, causing many to give up.

—In Lucas County, Ohio, one polling place never opened; the voting machines were locked in an office and no one could find the key. In Hamilton County many absentee voters could not cast a Democratic vote for president because John Kerry's name had been "accidentally" removed when Ralph Nader was taken off the ballot.

—A polling station in a conservative evangelical church in Miami County, Ohio, recorded an impossibly high turnout of 98 percent, while a polling place in Democratic inner-city Cleveland recorded an impossibly low turnout of 7 percent.

—Latino, Native American, and African American voters in New Mexico who favored Kerry by two to one were five times more likely to have their ballots spoiled and discarded in districts supervised by Republican election officials. Many were given provisional ballots that subsequently were never counted. In these same Democratic areas Bush "won" an astonishing 68 to 31 percent upset victory. One Republican judge in New Mexico discarded hundreds of provisional ballots cast for Kerry, accepting only those that were for Bush.

—Cadres of rightwing activists, many of them religious fundamentalists, were financed by the Republican Party. Deployed to key Democratic precincts, they handed out flyers warning that voters who had unpaid parking tickets, an arrest record, or owed child support would be arrested at the polls—all untrue. They went door to door offering to “deliver” absentee ballots to the proper office, and announcing that Republicans were to vote on Tuesday (election day) and Democrats on Wednesday.

—Democratic poll watchers in Ohio, Arizona, and other states, who tried to monitor election night vote counting, were menaced and shut out by squads of GOP toughs. In Warren County, Ohio, immediately after the polls closed Republican officials announced a “terrorist attack” alert, and ordered the press to leave. They then moved all ballots to a warehouse where the counting was conducted in secret, producing an amazingly high tally for Bush, some 14,000 more votes than he had received in 2000. It wasn't the terrorists who attacked Warren County.

—Bush did remarkably well with phantom populations. The number of his votes in Perry and Cuyahoga counties in Ohio, exceeded the number of registered voters, creating turnout rates as high as 124 percent. In Miami County nearly 19,000 additional votes eerily appeared in Bush’s column after all precincts had reported. In a small conservative suburban precinct of Columbus, where only 638 people were registered, the touchscreen machines tallied 4,258 votes for Bush.

—In almost half of New Mexico’s counties, more votes were reported than were recorded as being cast, and the tallies were consistently in Bush’s favor. These ghostly results were dismissed by New Mexico’s Republican Secretary of State as an “administrative lapse.”"
a few seconds ago · Like ·


Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.
Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.
Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”””””””””””””