Send your tax rebate checks to these people with "FOR IMPEACHMENT" on them, and send photocopies of the checks to these people.
Resist Election Madness.
Tell Congress this.
Sing our theme song.
The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush
The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens
The Case for Impeachment
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney
George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying
Verdict and Findings of Fact
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar
Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Admin- istration
The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America
The 2008 Election Will Be Stolen
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2008-04-19 20:27.
By David Swanson
A new collection of essays edited by Mark Crispin Miller called "Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000 - 2008," tells the story better than any single source I've seen yet.
The Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida in 2000 that would have made Al Gore president. This is not speculation. The recount was later done.
Numerous elections were stolen in 2002, in Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and elsewhere, including Senate, Governor, and House races in Georgia that were practically openly swiped by Diebold's elections unit president flying in at the last minute and altering the election machines. The theft of Don Siegelman's 2002 election as governor of Alabama was almost as transparent. One county reported a set of results from electronic machines that made Siegelman governor, then recalculated and reported a different set of results. The new results were statistically impossible, and the pair of reports strongly suggested exactly how the machines were rigged, first mistakenly and later as intended.
John Kerry and John Edwards won the presidential election in 2004. The evidence of specific fraud in Ohio and elsewhere is overwhelming, but so is the evidence of the exit polls. The unadjusted exit polls show Kerry and Edwards winning. When the results are "adjusted" to conform to the official results, we are asked to believe that Bush and Cheney increased their big city voters from 2.3 million in 2000 to 5.4 million in 2004, a 153 percent increase. While support for Cheney-Bush dropped off in rural areas, small towns, medium sized cities, etc., it skyrocketed in the Democratic strongholds of big cities. Let me be clear: that's the official story of what happened, not the wild conspiracy theory of ordinary people who allow themselves to be influenced by facts, logic, or memory of actual events.
Election fraud was not limited to Ohio or to the presidential race in 2004, but was widespread and systematic. This was also true in 2006. In many cases, Democratic turnout overwhelmed Republican fraud in 2006, and the Democrats picked up 30 new seats. But those victories were by larger margins than people believe. In other races, Republican fraud won out, and was immediately hushed up. Read the evidence in "Loser Take All," and then think about how the current Congress would have been different with 40 or 50 new Democrats rather than 30. The 2006 elections saw the most widespread and sophisticated election fraud our country has yet seen, combined with the greatest public confidence since 2000 that elections were honest and verifiable. That combination does not bode well for 2008.
The views of Senator John McCain are so far from those of most Americans, that Miller rightly refers to the Republicans as a fringe party. But that fringe party is perfecting election theft. The only way to prevent John McCain from being the next president would be to hand him such a whopping defeat that he could not plausibly claim to have honestly won. Sadly, Senator Obama (the Democratic nominee, barring an antidemocratic coup by super delegates) appears intent on avoiding a landslide at all costs and aiming, rather, for a tight victory of 1 or 2 percent. (And Senator Clinton appears intent on losing the election should she be miraculously nominated.)
Obama is sitting on a number of keys to a landslide if he would only pull them out of his pocket and use them. Thus far it appears he will not. The 20 percent of Americans who support the occupation of Iraq are not potential Obama voters. There is nothing to be gained by appealing to them. But when I talk to people in the peace movement, they are increasingly telling me they plan to stay home or vote for a third party candidate such as Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. None of them are potential McCain voters. They are, in fact, what Senator Hillary Clinton disdainfully refers to as "the activist base of the Democratic Party." According to Clinton, these people:
"turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of [my] positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them."
Well, guess what, we don't agree with Obama either. We appreciate the credit Clinton gives us for her defeat. For his own good, Obama needs to understand that he's next, that those of us who actively represent the 80 percent of the nation opposed to the occupation will direct our activism at him until he agrees to a speedy and complete withdrawal from Iraq. And we will mobilize millions to guarantee a landslide if Obama stands up this week and leads a filibuster of the next $170 billion for the occupation. If he continues to claim that he opposes the occupation while funding it with our grandchildren's borrowed treasure, his criticism of McCain will fall flat. If he continues to speak of reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq to "non-combat troops" while soldiers get their heads blown off deep within the Green Zone, he will lose all credibility. A "non-combat troop" in Iraq is another name for John McCain's fantasy that the Iraqis will someday stop resisting. If Obama votes No on the $170 billion without actively lobbying his colleagues to vote No, he will not be seen as sincere.
Obama was asked last week in Philadelphia about impeachment, indictment, and accountability for Bush and Cheney. He suggested that he MIGHT investigate their crimes AFTER we elect him president, and that he MIGHT prosecute them "if" they were found to have committed crimes. "If"? "If"? That word may become as famous as Dick Cheney's "So?" At every stop Obama makes on this endless campaign, people should hand him copies of John Conyers' "The Constitution in Crisis," a book you can buy in most bookstores which documents a long list of criminal offenses committed by Bush and Cheney. Does Obama disagree with the book's conclusions? Does he have a response to Bush's public confession to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Does he question the two Government Accountability Office studies that have found that in a significant percentage of cases, when Bush has announced his right to violate laws through signing statements, he has proceeded to violate those laws? Does Obama now believe the invasion of Iraq and everything that came with it was possibly legal? Was the February 7, 2002, order from Bush allowing the torture of detainees a legal act? "If?" "If?"
(You can find Conyers' whole book for free here: http://afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis Just click on "Summary," print out that short section, and send it to Obama.)
If Obama were to quietly allow impeachment hearings on Cheney or Bush to proceed on such subjects as torture and signing statements, he could put McCain on the defensive and force him to defend each crime while promising not to commit it. Impeachment hearings could squeeze out all coverage of nonsense spats and scandals. And if the American public understood that voting for Obama would put Bush and Cheney behind bars, we would see a landslide that could not be denied.
Sadly, it looks like we're going to see a tight race. During this tight race, good citizens will avoid all other political activism and devote their energies to the race. And not just their energies. We will transfer enough wealth to build a real populist movement for justice or a legitimate source of news into the hands of corporate television networks in the form of campaign ads. And, as a reward for our efforts, the election will be stolen.
Unless we interrupt this script and make some changes.
www.VelvetRevolution.us
David you are so right!
It is obvious that the only way Pelosi can win is by stealing the election. I am not saying there are not a few nutcases out there who will vote for that woman and some who will vote for McCain. But neither of them can win with out a full scale effort to deceive the people and steal the election.
We have to stop that. I am not at all willing to go to bat for Obama if he will not stand up to the warmongers and the Christian Zionists who are intent on destroying the earth in Israel/Palestine and beyond.
4Peace
Does a stolen election matter at this point?
You don't get to be a presidential front runner in America's ridiculous electoral charade by being an actual agent of change. You kiss the right asses, hit all the right empty emotional buzzwords (over and over), appeal to the impatient, easy-way nature of the sleepwalking masses by convincing them YOU can fix everything, and before you know it, you're prime presidential material.
As you pointed out, David, one Obama word says it all:
IF.
Those two letters prove he cannot be trusted.
If he gets SE-lected, a lot of well-meaning people who worked very hard to get him there will feel betrayed in fairly short order.
"War" will continue regardless of who wins. The two major parties (along with the bought and paid for media) will continue to conspire to silence third parties and independents. The system will continue to hobble along, still broken.
Does it reall matter if another election is stolen?
Latest video commentary:
"Bush Signs Off on Homicide"
4/15/08
Yes !
If Obama wins there will be a "Perhaps" or a "May be".
If Mcain wins, there will be WWIII if his first term.
The Politics of "Virtuous Victimization"...
Since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, and continuing throiugh the successive assassinations of John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, the American voting population has been transformed into "virtuous victims"; people who see themselves as "victims" of a mean, hostile and dangerous world located within a universe which is both indifferent and enigmatic, capricious and mysterious, and who also believe that they're not supposed to get anything good during their time on Earth, and that lack of "something good" supposedly makes them more virtuous and innocent.
For the "virtuous victim", suffering, misery and abuse are the "price" for living in a mean world within an indifferent universe, and nowhere is this "virtuous victimization" demonstrated more clearly than during every Presidential election cycle.
When a particular candididate is built up as a populist candidate (which is what's happening to Barack Obama), the "virtuous victim" watches with great glee as the candidate is built up to an unrealistic level, then swiftly taken down while being savagely kicked by the MSM during both the rise and fall.
Also, the "virtuous victim" tolerates being teased by the candidates with a promise of something which will appeal to them, and during each election cycle, the promise has to be bigger or else, the V.V. won't give the candidate the time of day. Just when that "promise" of something good appears to be within reach, the promise is taken away, leaving in its wake a wave of demoralization and discouragement among a small group of voters within certain sections of the voting population.
The "virtuous victim" engages in this type of destructive political behavior over and over and over again, in order to reinforce his "belief" that he's unworthy of anything good, that he lives in a hosatile world and an indifferent universe and of his own "virtue". He tolerates stolen elections, and being teased with bigger promises which he knows will be taken away before they can be honored -- since he also knows the big promise he was teased with has become so huge that it can never be honored -- because this is what he thinks he deserves.
So when the election is stolen yet again, the "virtuous victim" will rejoice and cheer, because he'll be getting the government which he thinks he deserves; a fascist, Unitary Executive government which can declare martial law on a whim, set itself up as the highest law in the land and supercede the Constitution, rip up what's left of the Constitution and destroy the mandate contained within the six solemn commitments contained within the Preamble (and destroy the solemn commitments themselves), inflict fiscal "austerity" programs which will gut education, the arts, the economy, diplomacy and international relations and bring what scientific and technological development we've got left to a halt, and produce more misery, despair and suffering, which suits the "virtuous victim" just fine, because he'll have something new to whine and cry about when he throws another "poor-me-baby" pity party on Inauguration Day.
Good one, David. I'm putting
Good one, David. I'm putting this up on my site.
The Declaration of Independence gives the people real options!
We have options.
We do not have to accept a stolen election.
We the People have the ultimate authority when it comes to our government.
As I keep saying, the Declaration of Independence is not only our original founding document, it is the end-all when it comes to the ultimate rights of the people. This has nothing to do with violent revolution! Not necessary! This is also not about nationalism or guns!. This is about all people worldwide and our right to live in peace.
We the People have come to a crossroads in our culture, as well as our world. Consider these words written within the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles, & organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, & to provide new guards for their future security."
It doesn't matter that the fifty-five signers had their own self-interests. What matters is that the words exist on that venerated piece of parchment in the National Archives. They exist, we teach our children about them in school, and many in our government would just as soon have them go away.
But they're not going to go away, and neither are We the People. Read those words again and again. Look past the obvious flaws into the potential. We the People have the authority to call a Peoples Constitutional Convention. We the People must now do so, in order to protect and defend the Constitution.
A Convention could get the Universal Declaration of Human Rights added to the Preamble, as well as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
A Convention could help create a solid mechanism written into the Constitution so that the people could actually enforce the Sworn Oath of Office. Imagine that!
A Convention could rid the people of the immoral prohibition of the Cannabis plant. Our most revered historical documents are written on paper from this very plant! Not to mention all the medicinal uses.
A Convention could create an Amendment that would put the media back in the hands of the people by breaking up monopolies and mandating free and equal time for all political candidates for all elections.
A Convention could reform the election process by banning all political contributions. Not necessary with free and equal media time. Right? This would eliminate corporate lobbying as well. Salaries for elected and appointed officials would also be capped to reflect the median income.
And of course we don't want to forget that We the People could right an old wrong. Because a Convention could also eliminate the rights of personhood from all business entities, like corporations. Something they never should have had.
Support the calling of a new Peoples Constitutional Convention and sign the petition for the Peoples Warrant for the Arrest of Bush, Cheney, et al..
Go to the website: http://www.wtpnet.org
Sign the petition: http://www.wtpnet.org/phpPETITION/index.php
Paul Fisher
We the People Network
http://www.wtpnet.org/
mail@wtpnet.org
Support the Peoples Constitutional Convention!
It will be stolen alright
People, Hilary Clinton is our next president, PERIOD. She is the candidate that's needed to ring in new socialist America, and yes if need be she'll win via the voting machine. It doesn't really matter, she's our next president. Wait and See.
And last year she was tapped
And last year she was tapped by the "Bilderbergs".
'Wait & See' -- That Implies Doing Nothing While Matters Unfold
I say at least FIGHT (sign petetions, write letters, inform others, yes even vote for your own choice of preference on voting day) to do anything short of violence of course in ensuring that HBILLARY (and that's not a typo) and/or MCCAIN are kept away from the control booth that operates our nation. They certainly aren't qualified (on many levels they're not qualfied) just as GWB who clearly stole the election earlier was not (and is not) qualified to be our POTUS. Slowly but surely people are waking up to these facts, and much more. But standing around and 'waiting to see' will do nothing but grease the skids for those that would have their way to actually get their way. Not a good idea allowing something like that. At least FIGHT to have it otherwise. Even a person being beaten to death needs to shout STOP! Not that it will necessarily always result as desired; but 'giving up' certainly comes with its own set of telling obvious and unquestionable results.
Please don't misunderstand my comments // I'm quite aware that the gangster element now in control would have as their choice either HBILLARY or MCCAIN at the controls. They have been the chosen ones since before day one of this 'egg shell fragile' pseudo election process. And of course there is DIEBOLD there in the background working against our wishes in this matter. But we're on to their schemes and who it is they would have us believe is best for our nation -- none of them are that; it's not our choice that truly matters to them -- it's theirs. Wrong as that is. At least we need to try and change it back to OURS -- 'Try' being the key word there.
-- My thoughts on the subject.
How 'bout McSame as Rovian Straw man?
Right you are, jbrid1138: I'd rather die a free man than live as a slave... I will only go down swinging.
But you made a comment here that inspired an interesting thought:
"I'm quite aware that the gangster element now in control would have as their choice either HBILLARY or MCCAIN at the controls."
I've been puzzled by McSame's completely lame candidacy, through and through, 'cause it just doesn't make sense how Rove&Co would be backing such an obvious failure on so many levels. David is right that we need that break-away issue to overwhelm election-theft like Impeachment, though I favor confronting the Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11 due to the fact that it will expose and arrest so many "private" accomplices to this fascist coup, whereas Impeachment will just change the military-industrial Pawn-in-Chief. But my thought about Rove backing McSame was this:
Is McCain a political Straw-man? Intended to look bad, to fail, to make HBillary look good, to give "Virtuous Victims" spoken of above "relief" that McCain did NOT get in, when in fact, HBillary has more smarts and connections to the "overworld" coup d'etat?
Rovian Straw man makes more sense of it to me...
ixoxi
Obama vs CableNews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbHDW8nBawE