gheddafi: elezioni subito, puo candidarsi bhl

.
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/11_giugno_15/cremonesi-intervista-figlio-gheddafi_d373b458-9791-11e0-83e2-2963559124a0.shtml

Saif Gheddafi : «Subito elezioni
E' l'unico modo indolore per uscirne»

Il figlio del Rais: «Ricucire con l'Italia? No, finchè ci sarà Berlusconi, lui e Frattini ci hanno tradito»

LORENZO CREMONESI
15 giugno 2011

TRIPOLI - «Elezioni, subito e con la supervisione internazionale. E’ l’unico modo indolore per uscire dall’impasse in Libia»: il momento più interessante dell’intervista l’altra sera nel cuore della capitale arriva a 14 minuti dal suo inizio. Sino a quel momento Saif al-Islam aveva ribadito le dichiarazioni già rilasciate alla stampa in passato e sbandierate in ogni occasione dalla propaganda della dittatura. «I ribelli agli ordini dei terroristi di Bengasi sono banditi, uomini di Al Qaeda, criminali. I loro capi sono traditori, che sino allo scoppio del caos il 17 febbraio erano legati a filo doppio a mio padre. Se non ci fosse l’ombrello Nato sarebbero stati sconfitti da un pezzo», afferma quasi meccanicamente. Ma è quando gli si chiede come pensa di uscire dall’impasse militare e dalla minaccia di violenze anche peggiori che lui avanza la formula di compromesso. «Andiamo alle urne. E vinca il migliore». Un messaggio nuovo di apertura alla comunità internazionale da parte del più politico tra i figli del Colonnello.

...

Usciamo dal tunnel delle accuse reciproche. Lei sostiene che i ribelli vanno perseguitati come traditori. E loro replicano che tutta la vostra famiglia va processata, al meglio espulsa all’estero. La Nato sta dalla loro parte, godono di un crescente sostegno internazionale. Gheddafi è sempre più isolato, deve andarsene. Dove il compromesso?
«Elezioni. Si potrebbero tenere entro tre mesi. Al massimo a fine anno. E la garanzia della loro trasparenza potrebbe essere la presenza di osservatori internazionali. Non ci formalizziamo su quali. Accettiamo l’Unione Europea, l’Unione Africana, l’Onu, la stessa Nato. L’importante è che lo scrutinio sia pulito, non ci siano sospetti di brogli. E allora tutto il mondo scoprirà quanto Gheddafi è ancora popolare nel suo Paese. Non ho alcun dubbio: la stragrande maggioranza dei libici sta con mio padre e vede i ribelli come fanatici integralisti islamici, terroristi sobillati dall’estero, mercenari agli ordini di Sarkozi. Alla nostra gente non sfugge che lo stesso presidente del governo fantoccio a Bengasi, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, come del resto il loro responsabile militare, Abdel Fatah Younes, sono, al pari di tanti altri, uomini della vecchia nomenclatura, gente che è saltata sul carro delle rivolte all’ultimo minuto, miserabili profittatori, venduti. Erano ministri con Gheddafi e ora vogliono giocare la parte dei leader contro di lui. Ridicoli. Non li temiamo affatto. Sono fantocci di Parigi. Marionette incapaci di stare in piedi da sole».

I ribelli temono di essere assassinati, perseguitati, come del resto è avvenuto in 42 anni di dittatura a tanti membri dell’opposizione. Cosa offre per garantire la loro incolumità?
«Sono loro che hanno paura, non noi. Li conosco bene, uno a uno, sono stati con me nelle università straniere. Hanno goduto del mio programma di liberalizzazione negli ultimi dieci anni, di cui, si badi bene, non mi pento affatto. Il nostro rapporto è come quello tra il serpente e il topo che vorrebbero convivere nella stessa tana. Ci considerano il serpente. La soluzione? Dobbiamo essere tutti eguali: tutti serpenti, o tutti topi. E la via è quella delle urne».

Ma come li garantisce?
«Occorre pensarci. Dovremo cercare di mettere in piedi un meccanismo per garantirli. Nel periodo prima del voto si dovrà comunque elaborare la nuova costituzione e un sistema di media completamente libero. Credo in una Libia del futuro composta da forti autonomie locali e un debole governo federale a Tripoli. Il modello potrebbero essere gli Stati Uniti, la Nuova Zelanda o l’Australia. In questi ultimi mesi ho maturato una convinzione profonda: la Libia pre-17 febbraio non esiste più. Qualsiasi cosa accada, inclusa la sconfitta militare o politica dei ribelli, non si potrà tornare indietro. Il regime di mio padre così come si è sviluppato dal 1969 è morto e sepolto. Gheddafi è stato superato dagli avvenimenti, ma così anche Jalil. Occorre costruire qualche cosa di completamente nuovo».

E se le elezioni le vincono i dirigenti di Bengasi?
«Bravi. Tanto di cappello. Noi ci faremo da parte. Sono però certo della nostra vittoria. Sui poco più di cinque milioni di libici, almeno i due milioni residenti a Tripoli stanno con noi e anche a Bengasi godiamo della maggioranza. Semplicemente laggiù la gente non può parlare per paura di rappresaglie. Comunque, se dovessimo perdere, ovvio che lasceremo il governo. Rispettiamo le regole. Non mi opporrei neppure se venisse democraticamente eletto nostro premier l’intellettuale ebreo-francese Bernard-Henri Levy» (sorride per la battuta).

La pensa così anche suo padre dopo 42 anni di regime?
«Certo».

E, in quel caso, Gheddafi sarebbe pronto all’esilio?
«No. Non c’è motivo. Perché mai? Questo è il nostro Paese. Mio padre continua a ripeterlo. Non se ne andrà mai dalla Libia. Qui è nato e qui intende morire ed essere sepolto, accanto ai suoi cari».

A quel punto non sareste però voi a rischio di vendette? Andrete a cercare protezione tra qualche tribù fedele nel deserto?
«Staremo a Tripoli, a casa nostra. Nessuno di noi scappa. Sappiamo come difenderci».

L’Italia potrebbe avere un ruolo in questo processo di ricostruzione democratica?
«Non ora. Non sino a quando ci sarà Berlusconi al governo. Da quello che possiamo capire qui a Tripoli, il vostro premier è in difficoltà, pare inevitabile la sua prossima sconfitta elettorale. Bene. Non possiamo che gioirne. Lui e il ministro degli Esteri Frattini si sono comportati in modo abominevole con noi. Sino a tre mesi prima lo scoppio della ribellione venivano a inchinarsi e baciavano le mani a Gheddafi. Salvo poi voltare la schiena e passare armi e bagagli tra le file dei nostri nemici alla prima difficoltà. Vergogna!».

Che sarà dei contratti con l’Eni? Italia e Libia hanno una lunga storia di rapporti economici che va ben oltre i governi Berlusconi.
«Ovvio, e infatti separiamo nettamente la figura di Berlusconi dall’Italia. Apprezziamo le critiche alla guerra e contro la Nato avanzate dalle Lega. Guardiamo con interesse ai vostri partiti della sinistra. La Libia terrà un atteggiamento assolutamente diverso nei confronti di un’Italia senza Berlusconi».

E il petrolio?
«Non so. E’ prematuro parlarne. Per ora dobbiamo porre fine alla guerra, imporre la legge e l’ordine in tutto il Paese. Ma voglio essere franco. Da tempo Mosca guarda con interesse ai pozzi e alle infrastrutture Eni in Libia. Forse, ora i russi hanno una carta in più».

Pure, anche Mosca ultimamente ha perorato la causa dell’esilio di Gheddafi. Non la penalizzate?
«Lo so. Ma con Berlusconi è diverso. Si diceva vero amico di Gheddafi. Il suo tradimento brucia di più».

E allora, quale tra i governi stranieri potrebbe meglio aiutare la transizione verso il voto in Libia e nel contempo mediare con la Nato?
»La Francia. Abbiamo già avuto abboccamenti con Parigi, ma per ora senza seguito. Comunque, sono loro che impongono la politica del governo di Bengasi. E’ stato Sarkozy a volere più di tutti l’intervento Nato. Dunque a loro il compito di cercare una via d’uscita il meno cruenta possibile».

...

uk election: brown ready for lib dem coalition

.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pm-paves-way-for-deal-with--lib-dems-in-hung-parliament-1856888.html

January 4, 2010

PM paves way for deal with Lib Dems in hung parliament

Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor

Labour and Conservatives both set out their electoral stalls this week

Gordon Brown made an unprecedented overture to the Liberal Democrats yesterday amid growing expectation that Nick Clegg's party could hold the balance of power after the general election.

As Mr Brown hinted he would go to the country on 6 May, Labour and the Conservatives clashed on the best route out of the recession, the issue bound to dominate the campaign.

The Prime Minister was accused of dishonesty after he refused to say where public spending would have to be cut to tackle the nation's debts.

The parties begin to set out their election stalls this week, with Labour promising to improve literacy in primary schools and the Conservatives pledging to raise hospital standards.

A slight fall in the Tory opinion poll lead in recent months has made the election the most unpredictable since 1992. Asked about the possibility of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in the event of a hung parliament, Mr Brown struck an uncharacteristically emollient note towards the party.

"There is an agreement of ideas and of course the Liberals, I think, are closer to us on tax and public services," he told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show.

Labour would fight "every inch of the way" at the election, he said. But Labour commitments on electoral reform, overhauling the House of Lords and recalling MPs who committed fraud, as well as its approach to the environment and civil liberties, showed his party had "not dissimilar" policies from the Liberal Democrats.

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, said: "Nick Clegg is a capable leader and ideologically I am on broadly the same page as him, as I believe is Gordon Brown."

The apparent olive branches came after Mr Cameron also tried to woo the Lib Dems by insisting there was "a lot less disagreement than there used to be" between their party and the Tories.

The Prime Minister said yesterday he "believed" he would hold a budget in the spring, which would rule out an election in March and suggests he is planning for 6 May. Labour's campaign will seek to paint the party as presenting an optimistic vision of Britain's prospects, contrasting that with Conservative warnings of austerity ahead.

Mr Brown gave a fresh sign of a planned "Labour investment versus Tory cuts" election message as he refused to say where spending would be slashed under his plans.

He insisted there was enough money to invest in health and schools and said national insurance rises, the abolition of pension tax relief and lower unemployment would cut the deficit.

George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, retorted: "Gordon Brown ... has slipped back into repeating his dishonest nonsense that Labour will go on spending, when his own Treasury figures reveal Labour cuts."

Shadow Cabinet ministers will fan out across the country today to campaign in marginal seats, while the Tory leadership will focus on its health plans.

Mr Cameron, who is trying to echo Barack Obama by calling for 2010 to be the "year of change", will set out plans to divert billions of pounds of NHS spending to poorer areas.

Andrew Lansley, the shadow Health Secretary, will promise to improve services to pregnant women by offering more specialist help in maternity units.

Mr Brown and Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, will today announce a guarantee that six and seven-year-olds who struggle with literacy and numeracy will receive intensive help.

iran: elections flaws less significant than floridas 2000

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E47D1CF2-18FE-70B2-A8A86265132AF194

source details: see bottom of text

Ahmadinejad won. Get over it

By: Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

June 15, 2009 12:01 PM EST

Without any evidence, many U.S. politicians and "Iran experts" have dismissed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection Friday, with 62.6 percent of the vote, as fraud.

They ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad's 62.6 percent of the vote in this year's election is essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election, when he trounced former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The shock of the "Iran experts" over Friday's results is entirely self-generated, based on their preferred assumptions and wishful thinking.

Although Iran's elections are not free by Western standards, the Islamic Republic has a 30-year history of highly contested and competitive elections at the presidential, parliamentary and local levels. Manipulation has always been there, as it is in many other countries.

But upsets occur — as, most notably, with Mohammed Khatami's surprise victory in the 1997 presidential election. Moreover, "blowouts" also occur — as in Khatami's reelection in 2001, Ahmadinejad's first victory in 2005 and, we would argue, this year.

Like much of the Western media, most American "Iran experts" overstated Mir Hossein Mousavi's "surge" over the campaign's final weeks. More important, they were oblivious — as in 2005 — to Ahmadinejad's effectiveness as a populist politician and campaigner. American "Iran experts" missed how Ahmadinejad was perceived by most Iranians as having won the nationally televised debates with his three opponents — especially his debate with Mousavi.

Before the debates, both Mousavi and Ahmadinejad campaign aides indicated privately that they perceived a surge of support for Mousavi; after the debates, the same aides concluded that Ahmadinejad's provocatively impressive performance and Mousavi's desultory one had boosted the incumbent's standing. Ahmadinejad's charge that Mousavi was supported by Rafsanjani's sons — widely perceived in Iranian society as corrupt figures — seemed to play well with voters.

Similarly, Ahmadinejad's criticism that Mousavi's reformist supporters, including Khatami, had been willing to suspend Iran's uranium enrichment program and had won nothing from the West for doing so tapped into popular support for the program — and had the added advantage of being true.

More fundamentally, American "Iran experts" consistently underestimated Ahmadinejad's base of support. Polling in Iran is notoriously difficult; most polls there are less than fully professional and, hence, produce results of questionable validity. But the one poll conducted before Friday's election by a Western organization that was transparent about its methodology — a telephone poll carried out by the Washington-based Terror-Free Tomorrow from May 11 to 20 — found Ahmadinejad running 20 points ahead of Mousavi. This poll was conducted before the televised debates in which, as noted above, Ahmadinejad was perceived to have done well while Mousavi did poorly.

American "Iran experts" assumed that "disastrous" economic conditions in Iran would undermine Ahmadinejad's reelection prospects. But the International Monetary Fund projects that Iran's economy will actually grow modestly this year (when the economies of most Gulf Arab states are in recession). A significant number of Iranians — including the religiously pious, lower-income groups, civil servants and pensioners — appear to believe that Ahmadinejad's policies have benefited them.

And, while many Iranians complain about inflation, the TFT poll found that most Iranian voters do not hold Ahmadinejad responsible. The "Iran experts" further argue that the high turnout on June 12 — 82 percent of the electorate — had to favor Mousavi. But this line of analysis reflects nothing more than assumptions.

Some "Iran experts" argue that Mousavi's Azeri background and "Azeri accent" mean that he was guaranteed to win Iran's Azeri-majority provinces; since Ahmadinejad did better than Mousavi in these areas, fraud is the only possible explanation.

But Ahmadinejad himself speaks Azeri quite fluently as a consequence of his eight years serving as a popular and successful official in two Azeri-majority provinces; during the campaign, he artfully quoted Azeri and Turkish poetry — in the original — in messages designed to appeal to Iran's Azeri community. (And we should not forget that the supreme leader is Azeri.) The notion that Mousavi was somehow assured of victory in Azeri-majority provinces is simply not grounded in reality.

With regard to electoral irregularities, the specific criticisms made by Mousavi — such as running out of ballot paper in some precincts and not keeping polls open long enough (even though polls stayed open for at least three hours after the announced closing time) — could not, in themselves, have tipped the outcome so clearly in Ahmadinejad's favor.

Moreover, these irregularities do not, in themselves, amount to electoral fraud even by American legal standards. And, compared with the U.S. presidential election in Florida in 2000, the flaws in Iran's electoral process seem less significant.

In the wake of Friday's election, some "Iran experts" — perhaps feeling burned by their misreading of contemporary political dynamics in the Islamic Republic — argue that we are witnessing a "conservative coup d'état," aimed at a complete takeover of the Iranian state.

But one could more plausibly suggest that if a "coup" is being attempted, it has been mounted by the losers in Friday's election. It was Mousavi, after all, who declared victory on Friday even before Iran's polls closed. And three days before the election, Mousavi supporter Rafsanjani published a letter criticizing the leader's failure to rein in Ahmadinejad's resort to "such ugly and sin-infected phenomena as insults, lies and false allegations." Many Iranians took this letter as an indication that the Mousavi camp was concerned their candidate had fallen behind in the campaign's closing days.

In light of these developments, many politicians and "Iran experts" argue that the Obama administration cannot now engage the "illegitimate" Ahmadinejad regime. Certainly, the administration should not appear to be trying to "play" in the current controversy in Iran about the election. In this regard, President Barack Obama's comments on Friday, a few hours before the polls closed in Iran, that "just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people looking at new possibilities" was extremely maladroit.

From Tehran's perspective, this observation undercut the credibility of Obama's acknowledgement, in his Cairo speech earlier this month, of U.S. complicity in overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government and restoring the shah in 1953.

The Obama administration should vigorously rebut any argument against engaging Tehran following Friday's vote. More broadly, Ahmadinejad's victory may force Obama and his senior advisers to come to terms with the deficiencies and internal contradictions in their approach to Iran. Before the Iranian election, the Obama administration had fallen for the same illusion as many of its predecessors — the illusion that Iranian politics is primarily about personalities and finding the right personality to deal with. That is not how Iranian politics works.

The Islamic Republic is a system with multiple power centers; within that system, there is a strong and enduring consensus about core issues of national security and foreign policy, including Iran's nuclear program and relations with the United States. Any of the four candidates in Friday's election would have continued the nuclear program as Iran's president; none would agree to its suspension.

Any of the four candidates would be interested in a diplomatic opening with the United States, but that opening would need to be comprehensive, respectful of Iran's legitimate national security interests and regional importance, accepting of Iran's right to develop and benefit from the full range of civil nuclear technology — including pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle — and aimed at genuine rapprochement.

Such an approach would also, in our judgment, be manifestly in the interests of the United States and its allies throughout the Middle East. It is time for the Obama administration to get serious about pursuing this approach — with an Iranian administration headed by the reelected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Flynt Leverett directs The New America Foundation's Iran Project and teaches international affairs at Pennsylvania State university. Hillary Mann Leverett is CEO of STRATEGA, a political risk consultancy. Both worked for many years on Middle East issues for the U.S. government, including as members of the National Security Council staff.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

source: The Politico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Politico is an American political journalism organization based in Washington, D.C., that distributes its content via television, the Internet, newspaper, and radio. Its coverage includes Congress, Washington lobbying, and the 2008 presidential election.[1] It was a sponsor of the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on May 3, 2007, and the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates debate at the Kodak Theater on January 31, 2008.

John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei left The Washington Post to become Politico's editor-in-chief and executive editor, respectively. Politico is financed by Robert Allbritton, chairman and chief executive of Allbritton Communications, which owns television stations in Washington and elsewhere, and is an affiliate of Disney-owned ABC. Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of Politico.[3]

On September 23, 2008, the New York Times reported that Politico would expand its operations following the presidential election: "announce on Monday that after Election Day, it will add reporters, editors, Web engineers and other employees; expand circulation of its newspaper edition in Washington; and print more often."[4]

Distribution and content

The newspaper has a circulation of approximately 25,000, distributed for free on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Washington, D.C.[1] The newspaper prints three issues a week while Congress is in session, and sometimes publishes one issue a week when Congress is in recess. [5]

rome: radical hunger strike for senate vp

Emma Bonino, at right showing the party symbol, a leading member of Italy's Radical Party, demonstrates with party supporters outside Italian RAI state television headquarters in Rome, Thursday June 4, 2009. Bonino staged a hunger strike and sit-in at state-run RAI television to protest a lack of media coverage ahead of this weekend's European Parliament elections. Emma Bonino, a former EU Commissioner, had occupied a RAI studio since Tuesday. The Radicals are protesting the failure of RAI and private television in Italy to abide by rulings from a government watchdog that they must provide more equal coverage for smaller political parties. (AP Photo/Sandro Pace) - AP

iraq: us officer challenges obama's citizenship

.
WND Exclusive OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders

'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'

February 23, 2009

9:35 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Soldier Scott Easterling

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.

Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."

Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 250,000 others and sign up now!

Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.

Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.

Easterling said he joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor.

"I chose to work … to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of basic training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent basic officer leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly thereafter deployed to Balad, Iraq," he wrote.

"I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.

Taitz said Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama's eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president.

"My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz's lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action," he said.

Easterling was "saluted" in a forum on Taitz' website.

"Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC, I salute you sir as a true American patriot and hero! Thank you for your unselfish service to our country. It is rare to find someone today with such moral courage to do the right thing regardless of repercussions," said one contributor.

Said another, "For your voluntary service to our country, we owe you a debt we can never pay."

As WND reported yesterday, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said during a meeting with constituents in Cullman County he has never seen proof the new president was born in Hawaii.

"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Shelby said. "You have to be born in America to be president."

Shelby's office later stated the senator is confident of Obama's vetting process, although it did not elaborate.

WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

palin has intel past

.
source: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/06/nation/na-guard6


An important job, but focused on Alaska policy

The job involves important managerial responsibilities but provides little, if any, foreign policy experience, military officials say.

By Julian E. Barnes

September 06, 2008 in print edition A-13

Seeking to buttress the foreign policy credentials of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Republicans have repeatedly cited the vice presidential nominee’s experience as commander of the Alaska National Guard.

As governor, Palin oversees military units whose duties include serving overseas, search-and-rescue missions across the state’s vast landscape and manning key elements of the U.S. missile defense system at Ft. Greely.

But foreign deployments of Guard units and the operation of national defense assets like the Ft. Greely missile interceptors are not the responsibility of state governors. Those functions come under the regular U.S. military chain of command.

Commanding the Alaska National Guard is hardly an insignificant job, military officials say. Still, they acknowledge that it provides little, if any, foreign policy experience.

Overseeing a state Guard is a “chief executive role” with real management responsibilities, said Mark Allen, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau, the federal office that coordinates state National Guards.

“I don’t think people should think it is a casual relationship, or is like the king putting on the medals,” Allen said. “It is not that at all. But the role of the governor is to use the Guard to help the citizens of a state, as opposed to declaring war on a neighboring state.”

The Alaska National Guard is unusual in that its jobs include manning part of the U.S. missile defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion works on interceptor missiles designed to shoot down intercontinental missiles.

Members of the Alaska National Guard also were deployed to Iraq, and Palin visited their unit in July 2007. The McCain campaign has pointed to that experience as an example of Palin’s foreign policy background.

“She’s been the commander of Alaska’s National Guard, who’s been deployed overseas,” Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman, said on CNN in one of several recent references to Palin’s gubernatorial responsibility for the Guard. “That’s foreign policy experience.”

Since governors have no role in overseeing Guard members federalized for service in Iraq, military experts said that should not count as foreign policy experience.

National Guard officials said visits such as Palin’s trip to Iraq may be important because state officials can lobby the federal government for better training and more equipment if they are needed. There is no indication that during her trip Palin found major problems with how the Alaska Guard was trained or equipped.

Closer to home, the bread-and-butter duties of most state National Guards are natural disasters. During Palin’s 21 months in office, there has been one declared disaster: widespread flooding in June and July this year. Palin quickly signed a disaster declaration, officials said. The Guard’s role was limited to providing two water tanks and 30,000 sandbags to local authorities.

The Alaska Air National Guard, with 1,946 service members, is involved in an exceptional number of search-and-rescue missions. Since Palin became governor in December 2006, the Air Guard has flown 521 missions, saving 200 lives and assisting with the rescue of 77 more people, said Kalei Brooks, a spokeswoman for the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.

“Our rescue squadron is the busiest in the nation,” she said.

In recent years, the department has overseen a reorganization of the 1,900-member Army National Guard. Following a U.S. Army restructuring plan, officials have helped assign soldiers to new units.

But training requirements for Guard units are established not by governors, but by the Army, the Air Force and the National Guard Bureau.

“That requirement comes down from the United States Army and Air Force,” Allen said. “But that training and that equipment become very important when they are needed within the states.”

julian.barnes@latimes.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

source: http://blog.russianlife.com/2008/09/palin.html

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Sarah Palin's Secret Past... Revealed!


Many have scoffed at Cindy McCain's defense of Alaska Governor (and GOP Veep candidate) Sarah Palin's foreign policy chops with the assertion that "Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia."

Scoff not. The truth is so more startling still.

We have made thorough inquiries with our sources in Russia's far eastern region of Chukotka (just 53 miles from Alaskan America across the Bering Strait), and it turns out that Ms. Palin's connection with Russia may have more wrinkles than a 44-year-old Texas Armadillo.

Our source, which requested anonymity because he was specious, alleged that, in 1988 and 1989, when Palin was ostensibly employed as a "sports reporter" for KTUU in Anchorage and "helping out" in her husband's family commercial fishing business, she captained a fishing vessel which made several highly treacherous forays into Russian waters and at least twice landed on what was then Soviet soil. According to our source, Palin was carrying out secret missions, dropping sleeper spies onto Russian soil and slipping away under cover of darkness.

"This is very brave woman," said our Chukotkan informant. "She come very close to get caught many times. And she drop off secret anti-Soviet agents too."

There was no immediate, official comment from the McCain-Palin campaign to the revelation that Palin worked for US intelligence 20 years ago. But one influential Republican source did offer, on deep background, that "you media clowns don't know half of what there is to know about Little Sarah. Hell, did you know 'Palin' is derived from the Russian word for 'scorch'? I didn't think so. Dammit, when the American public finds out that this little woman was almost single-handedly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's gonna be all over for the Angry Leftists."

Our Russian source was inclined to agree. "This is American hero. Russian hero too. International hero. And if you don't believe me she was spy, you just have to look at her family. You think it accident that all her children have code names like Willow and Piper and Trig? Truth, she is sometimes a hard thing."

And yet, the truth will always out...

Posted by editor at 7:42 PM

us: oligarchy vs. democracy

.
source: réseau voltaire

http://www.voltairenet.org/article157308.html

Interview with Thierry Meyssan about the Electoral Process in the United States

6 June 2008

2008 Presidential Campaign USA: An Anti-Democratic Show

by Sandro Cruz*

Every four years, the election of the President of the United States takes a big media show that keeps the world in tenterhooks. The US electoral system, which is extremely complex and controlled by the oligarchy, offers a popular sovereignty image, despite the fact that it was created to counter such sovereignty. Thierry Meyssan answers our questions about the hidden operations of «democracy» made in the U.S.A.

Sandro Cruz: The US presidential campaign is in full swing now. Three candidates keep struggling. What is your opinion of these candidates??

Thierry Meyssan: First, this is not an issue involving only three candidates to be nominated (McCain for the Republican nomination, Ms. Clinton and Obama for the Democrats), because there are small parties which also have their own [presidential] candidates and some independent candidates may launch their campaign in several states. In 2004 elections, there were 17 [presidential] candidates, but the European media only talked about three of them.

In 2008, at least there was one libertarian candidate, a green one and two Trotskist ones («the real one» Roger Calero and the «false one» Brian Moore, paid by the CIA; there was a prohibitionist (pastor Gene Amondson), a representative of the taxpayer’s party (now called the Party of the Constitution) and an independent one (Ralph Nader).

However, these small party candidates are not authorized to launch their campaigns throughout the whole [US] territory, so they will not even reach 5 percent of the votes. The republicans and the democrats will take the votes for them. That is why the US media is only interested in McCain, Obama and Ms. Clinton. But, they are making a big mistake because, although activism has no possibilities to get to the White House, it is getting deeper in US society and its influence is reaching the political discourse.

You ask me what I think about these big candidates; that is, what change the election of any of them in particular would bring to US policy. I think the question must be made the other way around. You will surely agree that current President George W. Bush does not have enough capacity to rule the country. He is a puppet hiding real power behind him. If US policy is not being decided within the walls of the Oval Office, why would that change next year?

US Oligarchy is now faced with a dilemma:

1. Keeping on with its colonial policy

2. Or returning to a more presentable form of imperialism.

Due to the stepping up of the financial crisis and military failures, the continuation of adventurous policies could lead to a freefall but, how can someone turn back if there is nothing that may directly force him to do so?

McCain represents the first point and Obama the second one. But Clinton may adapt to any of the two points. That is why she is still campaigning, while she must have withdrawn long time ago. In fact, after months of internal contradictions, US oligarchy has just taken a decision. As we have seen in current peace negotiations and accords in Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, the United States has renounced the «clash of civilizations» and the «re-designing of the Great Middle East.»

Obama has two virtues. On the one hand, his campaign is focusing on changes and thus he can easily incarnate a foreign policy renovation. On the other hand, the largely white oligarchy prefers to have a negro be responsible to announce the country’s bankruptcy and to face the inevitable social revolts that are to come up later.

Sandro Cruz: ¿Could you explain how that election, that electoral system works?

Thierry Meyssan: It is a puzzle that most citizens do not understand. Since the founding of the United States itself, they voluntarily chose a very complex electoral system and it became even more complicated with the passage of time. The Constitution of the United States was conceived according to the Declaration of Independence. The objective was to stop a potentially revolutionary process and set up a national oligarchy that would replace British aristocracy. Alexander Hamilton –the father of the Constitution – designed a system that would avoid any and all kind of popular sovereignty: Federalism.

The term is ambiguous. In Old Europe it is used to identify a kind of political and democratic unity that respects identities and partially maintains some forms of sovereignty. For instance, you recall the Helvetic Confederation. Hamilton, on his part, did not perceive the system from the basis up to the upper layers, but on the other way around, from the upper layers down to the basis. He did not federate local communities to create the states; he divided the estate by using local communities. Such ambiguity gave birth to the American Civil War (and we must recall that such a war had nothing to do with slavery, since slavery was abolished by the North during that war in order to massively recruit black soldiers). (…)

Sandro Cruz: Let’s make a pause here…It is, in fact, a very complex system and we have to slow down so that it can be understood. I would like this interview to become a sort of manual for those who are not specialists in this subject. You just said that: «he did not federate local communities to create states but divided the state using local communities.» It is hard for me to understand the second part of your statement. As a matter of fact, someone rules those states and that someone comes from a local community. Then, who has the political power in those states? And is there a real democratic selection at that social level?

Thierry Meyssan: For Alexander Hamilton, his fear of the «pleb» and his desire of setting up a US oligarchy equivalent to the British gentry were like an obsession. With the time, his political ideas included all kinds of hurdles to keep the people out of US policy.

As usual, every State adopts its own laws. In general terms, the objective of such laws is that of limiting the setting up of political parties and the launching of candidates to different elections. In most local elections they prohibit the presentation [as a candidate] of a person without the representation of a party and in everyday life it is impossible to create new parties.

The most caricatural system is that working in New Jersey, where you have to count on 10% percent of voters to set up a new party; it is a condition which –as everyone knows – can not be implemented and it definitively hinders small parties in the U.S. to open a chapter in the state of New Jersey.

We are talking about a system totally close by itself in which political life is confiscated by the representatives of the two major political parties at the state level. It is not possible for you to play a role if you are not accepted by such actors before.

Let’s go back to presidential elections. Alexander Hamilton granted powers to the states, which may appoint the so-called «big voters», whose number is defined according to the population of [each state]. And those big voters are the ones who elect the president of the United States, not the US citizens. In the 18th century no state would consult the population in that regard; at present, each state carries out a consultation action. In 2001, when Al Gore went to the Supreme Court in the face of electoral fraud in Florida, the court reminded him of the Constitution: that who appoints the big voters is the governor of Florida, not the people of Florida, and Washington can not interfere with the internal problems of Florida.

We have to understand that the United States is not, has never been and does not want to be a democratic state. It is an oligarchic system, which puts importance on public opinion as a tool to avoid a revolution. With very few exceptions like Jessie Jackson, no US politician asks for a reform to the Constitution and the recognition of popular sovereignty. Therefore, it sounds particularly comic to listen to Mr. Bush announce that he is going to «democratize» the world, in general, and the Great Middle East, in particular.

Sandro Cruz: Let’s make something clear, please. ¿Are the voters and the big voters the same people? ¿Are they the same party leaders?

Thierry Meyssan: No, of course not, here there is some language-related confusion. In the presence of a two-level electoral system, the terminology given by political sciences establishes a difference between ordinary voters and big voters. In the United States, however, the word «voter» is only applied to big voters since during the first decades of existence of that country, the people would not participate in elections.

The president of the United States is elected by a «college of voters», made up of 538 members. Each state has a number of big voters, which corresponds to the number of seats it has in Congress (among deputies and senators.) Colonies like Puerto Rico and the Guam islands are excluded of the electoral process.

Each state draws up its own rules to appoint its big voters. In fact, it is aimed at standardizing such rules among the states. At present all states, but Maine and Nebraska, which have implemented very complex systems, consider big voters to represent the majority of their population.

In the event that the [votes of ] the big voters would not represent a majority and a tie would occur between two candidates, the House of Representatives would then elect the president, while the Senate would elect the vice-president.

Sandro Cruz: ¿Do the primaries allow voters to pick their candidates or not? ¿What is the role of the super-delegates?

Thierry Meyssan: Primaries and conventions have two objectives. From the internal point of view, they monitor public opinion and evaluate how much things can be forced. From the external point of view, they offer the world the view that the US oligarchy is a democracy.

People usually think that the primaries help to avoid tricks by the top leadership by allowing member of the major parties in the basis to pick their candidate. But it is not so. It is not the political parties that organize the primaries, but the states! The primaries have been designed according to Hamilton’s plan of guaranteeing oligarchic control over the system and closing the way to dissident candidates.

Each state has its own rules to appoint its delegates to the federal conventions of the parties. There are six major methods and, there are also other mixed methods. Sometimes you need a party member card to be allowed to vote; sometimes party followers may vote along the party members; sometimes all the citizens may vote in the primaries of the two major parties; sometimes all the citizens may only vote in the primary of the party they choose; sometimes the parties carry out a common one-round primary and some other times a two-round primary. There are all possible combinations of those methods. Each primary election, in each state, has a different character.

On the other hand, some states do not have primaries but caucuses. For instance, in Iowa they have different vote counting in each of the 99 counties, where they elect local delegates, who at the same time hold second-degree primaries to elect the delegates to the national conventions. It is very similar to the alleged «democratic centralism», which Stalinists like that much.

This circus traditionally begins in February and runs for 6 months. But this year, the Democratic Party changed its schedule. The process was launched ahead of time as the party sorted out dates so that the amusement lasted throughout the year. The unilateral decision was not easy to put into practice and caused a lot of disturbance because, and I say again, it is not the parties that organize the primaries, but the states.

In the end [of the process] the delegates get together in their party convention. They are joined by the super-delegates who, contrary to such term means, are not delegates of anyone. They are notable persons and party leaders with their own rights. The super-delegates represent the oligarchy and their number is enough to tip the scales in either direction, disregarding the result of the primaries or the caucuses. They stand for 20 percent of all participants in the Democratic Party Convention and nearly 25 percent of the Republican Convention (although this latter one will only be a formality since McCain is the only one remaining).

Sandro Cruz: What is the role of primaries and caucuses in each state? How can we understand it?

Thierry Meyssan: I have just proved that they are useless, at least as what the appointment of candidates is concerned. But that big show helps reduce almost to zero the political coincidence of the US people. The corporate media keeps us on tenterhooks about the counting of delegates and donations. They are now talking about the «race» for the White House and about records, like if it were a televised marathon or the Star Academy.

A «suspense» is artificially maintained in order to get the attention of the public and repeat a message as many times as possible. Have you noticed the so many times the media has announced that this Tuesday is a crucial day, for instance? However, every time you see an inexplicable result which allows the candidate in a tight spot to keep on with his campaign in order to maintain the show running. In fact the show has been set. In 17 US states, they set up voting machines which do not allow any verification of results of electronic vote. It would be much better not to vote and let the candidates on their own and invent the results.

All those facts are joined by very doubtful subliminal messages. For instance, McCain chose as his slogan «Defense of Freedom and Dignity», which he uses in reference to religious freedom and the abolition of slavery. It is difficult to understand that such issues are in the center of concern of the average American. Then, whom is that slogan aiming at?

Ms. Clinton proclaims that «Each one in his own place». She means that, if she were in power nobody would be left helpless. But she also means that the people must be in their place and they must not try to change [that place] or interfere with the oligarchy.
Obama, on his part, comes up with the slogan «Change» written on his podium. That means that the United States needs to change, but it also recalls a change desk for money. Amidst a financial crisis such a term like «change» distracts the people a lot.

Sandro Cruz: In a recent article, you wrote that the US President is a man of the Military Industrial Complex. From that perspective, do you think that McCain will be elected President?

Thierry Meyssan: Your question again must be asked the other way around. The three candidates running for president are giving increasing signals of their loyalty to the Military Industrial Complex. It is an auction in which, as a matter of fact, McCain needs to prove nothing; but his rivals are not left behind. We heard Obama say he supported a bombardment of Pakistan and few days ago, Clinton threatened Iran with «wiping it out» of the map by means of a nuclear attack. Who offers more?

After months on the same race, these three candidates have reached absolute consensus on the main issues related to foreign and defense policies:

They consider that the defense of Israel is a strategic objective for the United States;
they have no plan to withdraw the troops from Iraq;
they present Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as big threats to the international stability.

However, there is a big difference among the candidates, which is based on the debate that just closed within the military industrial complex. McCain and his advisor Kissinger maintain the principle of direct confrontation, while Obama and his advisor Brzezinski propose [US] rule through representatives. Clinton and her advisor Albright incarnate normative imperialism, already obsolete. I usually write on Voltairenet.org about that strategic debate (particularly when the report by intelligence agencies on Iran and the resignation of Admiral Fallon were known) and the election of the new president depends precisely of that debate.

In the article you just mentioned, I wrote that the military industrial complex trusted Clinton. I still have the same opinion. Her statement is not of interest to the weapons industry anymore, and her efforts, either her secret participation in the Fellowship Foundation or her statements on Iran will not modify that fact. In this moment when you ask me these questions to say that «Clinton is done» is nothing new. That was the headline of a NY daily last week; and I wrote it when the European press still had Clinton on a pedestal.

We can not let ourselves be dragged by the stories imposed by the corporate media. There is nothing new in knowing if the United States will maintain, with McCain in power, 100, 000 troops and 200, 000 mercenaries in Iraq or if, with Obama in power, they will reduce the number of troops and increase the mercenary presence. What is important is to know if the United States still has the means demanded by its ambition and if it can rule the world –as the neocons still intend to do-, or if they are mined from inside and have to renounce their imperial dream to avoid their collapse –as the Baker-Hamilton Commission explained. The fact is that the freefall of the US dollar marked the end of the empire.

Ten years ago, a barrel of oil sold at just 8 dollars; now you need 135 dollars to get the same barrel and within two months you will probably need 200. On the other hand the stampede of the Hariri Clan militias, who ran away thus leaving the battlefield for Hezbollah –in just a few hours and throwing their weapons like garbage- shows the impossibility to turn to sub-contractors to guarantee police services for the empire.

Under such conditions, McCain is of no interest for the oligarchy. Obama and Brzezinski are the only ones to propose an alternative project: saving the empire by prioritizing secret action (not that costly) over war (too onerous).

Sandro Cruz: In effect, it is surprising to observe that Barak Obama, who affirms that he wants change in American society, has picked Brzezinski as his advisor, when we know that this person is an ideologist involved in sordid and secret operations: coups, sabotages and other criminal actions.

Thierry Meyssan: I met Zbignew Brzezinski three weeks ago [1]; I listened to his speech perfectly prepared on US renovation. He condemned all visible excesses of the Bush policy, from Guantanamo to Iraq, and in a very clever manner he recalled his own success against the Soviet Union.

However, I do not think that the next US president will have the chance to implement a new «big strategy». It is too late now. Barak Obama will have to face the cessation of payments in several states, which will not be able to pay the salaries of their own officials or guarantee public services. He will be too busy with the internal chaos to implement the plans designed by Brzezinski.

[1] Princess Nazerbayeva had invited Mr. Brzezinski to Almaty (Kazakhstan) as speaker in the opening session of the Eurasian Media Forum and Thierry Meyssan was invited as the speaker for the closing session. The annual conference gathers analysts, politicians and representatives of the mainstream media in Russia, China and Central Asia.

us: oligarchie contre démocratie

.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article157135.html

Entretien avec Thierry Meyssan sur le processus électoral aux États-unis

Maison-Blanche 2008 : un show anti-démocratique

L’élection du président aux États-Unis, tous les quatre ans, est l’occasion d’un grand spectacle médiatique qui tient le monde en haleine. Ce système électoral fort complexe est contrôlé par l’oligarchie et donne l’illusion d’une souveraineté populaire contre laquelle il a été conçu. Thierry Meyssan répond à nos questions sur le fonctionnement méconnu de la « démocratie » made in USA.

23 mai 2008

Genève (Suisse)

Sandro Cruz : Les États-Unis sont en pleine campagne électorale présidentielle. Trois candidats sont en lice. Quel regard portez-vous sur eux ?

Thierry Meyssan : En premier lieu, il importe de noter qu’il n’y a pas que trois candidats à la candidature (McCain chez les républicains, Clinton et Obama chez les démocrates), car de petits partis auront aussi leurs candidats, et des indépendants peuvent se présenter dans certains États. Il y avait dix-sept candidats en 2004, alors que les médias européens n’en ont cité que trois.

En 2008, il y aura au moins un candidat libertarien, un vert et deux trotskistes (le « vrai » Roger Calero et le « faux » Brian Moore, appointé par la CIA), un prohibitionniste (le pasteur Gene Amondson), un représentant du parti des contribuables (désormais dénommé parti de la Constitution), plus un indépendant (Ralph Nader)

Toutefois, ces petits candidats ne sont pas autorisés à se présenter sur tout le territoire et ne totaliseront probablement pas 5 % des voix. Le républicain et le démocrate rafleront la mise. C’est pourquoi les médias non-US ne s’intéressent qu’à MM. McCain, Obama et Mme Clinton. Ils ont tort, car si les petits candidats n’ont pas de crédibilité pour accéder à la Maison-Blanche, leur activisme laboure la société états-unienne et influence à terme le discours politique.

Vous me demandez ce que je pense des grands candidats c’est-à-dire ce que cela changera dans la politique des États-Unis si c’est l’un plutôt que l’autre qui est élu. Je pense que vous posez la question à l’envers. Vous conviendrez que l’actuel président, George W. Bush, n’a pas les capacités pour gouverner. C’est une marionnette derrière laquelle se cache le vrai pouvoir. Et si la politique des États-Unis ne se décide pas aujourd’hui dans le Bureau ovale, pourquoi voulez-vous qu’il en soit autrement l’an prochain ?

L’oligarchie est maintenant face à un dilemme :
- 1. Soit continuer la politique coloniale actuelle ;
- 2. Soit revenir à une forme d’impérialisme plus présentable.
Compte tenu de l’emballement de la crise financière et des échecs militaires, la poursuite de l’aventurisme peut conduire à la chute, mais aussi, pourquoi revenir en arrière quand on n’y est pas directement forcé ?

Si McCain correspond au premier terme de l’alternative et Obama au second, Clinton peut s’adapter à l’un comme à l’autre. C’est le sens de son maintien dans la course alors qu’elle aurait dû jeter l’éponge depuis longtemps. En réalité, après des mois de luttes intestines, l’oligarchie états-unienne vient de choisir. Comme on le voit avec les négociations en cours et divers accords de paix au Pakistan, en Irak, au Liban, en Syrie et en Palestine, elle a renoncé au « clash des civilisations » et au « remodelage du Grand Moyen-Orient ».

Obama offre deux qualités : d’une part, il a fait campagne sur le thème du changement et peut donc facilement incarner un renouveau en politique étrangère ; d’autre part, l’oligarchie majoritairement blanche préfère laisser à un noir la responsabilité d’annoncer la faillite du pays et d’affronter les inévitables révoltes sociales qui suivront.

Sandro Cruz : Pouvez-vous nous expliquer maintenant comment fonctionne ce scrutin ? Ce système électoral ?

Thierry Meyssan : C’est un casse-tête que l’immense majorité des citoyens ne comprend pas. Dès la fondation des États-Unis, les choses ont été volontairement embrouillées et elles ont été complexifiées avec le temps. La Constitution des États-Unis a été conçue en réaction à la Déclaration d’indépendance. Il s’agissait d’arrêter un processus potentiellement révolutionnaire et de créer une oligarchie nationale qui se substitue à l’aristocratie britannique. Alexander Hamilton —le principal père de la Constitution— a imaginé un système pour empêcher toute forme de souveraineté populaire : le fédéralisme.

Ce mot est équivoque. Dans la vieille Europe, on l’utilise pour désigner une forme d’union politique démocratique qui respecte les identités particulières et maintient des souverainetés partielles. On pense à la Confédération helvétique par exemple. Hamilton, quant à lui, a pensé le système non de bas en haut, mais de haut en bas. Il n’a pas fédéré des communautés locales pour créer un État, mais il a divisé l’État en utilisant des communautés locales. C’est cette ambigüité qui est l’origine de la Guerre de Sécession (laquelle je vous le rappelle n’a aucun rapport avec l’esclavage qui a été aboli par le Nord au cours de la guerre pour enrôler les noirs en masse). (…)

Sandro Cruz : Ne nous emballons pas, je vous arrête-là… Effectivement ce système est d’une grande complexité et nous devons aller doucement pour bien décortiquer la chose. J’aimerais que cette interview reste aussi un manuel pour les profanes. Vous venez de dire qu’ : « Il n’a pas fédéré des communautés locales pour créer un État, mais il a divisé l’État en utilisant des communautés locales. » J’ai de la peine à saisir la deuxième partie de votre phrase. Tout de même, il y a quelqu’un à la tête de ces États. Et ce quelqu’un vient d’une communauté locale. Alors, qui détient le pouvoir politique dans ces États ? Est-ce que à ce niveau il y a une vrai choix démocratique ?

Thierry Meyssan : Alexander Hamilton était obsédé par sa hantise de la « populace » et sa volonté de créer une oligarchie états-unienne équivalente à la gentry britannique. Au cours du temps, son courant politique a imaginé toutes sortes de verrous pour tenir le peuple loin de la politique.

Comme toujours, chaque État dispose de ses propres lois. D’une manière générale, elles visent à limiter la possibilité de créer un parti politique et de présenter des candidats aux diverses élections. Dans la plupart des scrutins locaux, il est interdit de se présenter sans l’investiture d’un parti et il est impossible en pratique de créer un nouveau parti.

Le système le plus caricatural est celui du New Jersey où il faut réunir 10 % des électeurs pour pouvoir créer un nouveau parti, une condition que chacun sait irréalisable et qui interdit définitivement aux petits partis états-uniens de disposer d’une section au New Jersey.

C’est un système entièrement fermé sur lui-même dans lequel, au final, la vie politique a été confisquée par les responsables des deux grands partis au niveau de chaque État. Il est impensable de pouvoir jouer un rôle si l’on n’est pas au préalable coopté par ces gens là.

Je reviens à l’élection présidentielle. Alexander Hamilton a donné le pouvoir aux États fédérés. Ils désignent des grands électeurs, dont le nombre est fixé en fonction de leur population. Ce sont ces grands électeurs qui élisent le président des États-Unis, pas les citoyens. Au XVIIIe siècle, aucun État ne consultait sa population à ce sujet, aujourd’hui chaque État procède à une consultation. Lorsqu’en 2000, Al Gore a saisi la Cour suprême à propos de la fraude électorale en Floride, la Cour a rappelé la Constitution : c’est le gouverneur de Floride qui désigne les grands électeurs, pas la population de la Floride, et les problèmes intérieurs de la Floride ne regardent pas Washington.

Comprenez bien : les États-Unis ne sont pas, n’ont jamais été et ne veulent pas, être un État démocratique. C’est un système oligarchique qui accorde une grande importance à l’opinion publique pour se prémunir d’une révolution. À de très rares exceptions, comme Jessie Jackson, aucun politicien US ne demande de réforme de la Constitution et de reconnaissance de la souveraineté populaire. C’est pourquoi il est particulièrement plaisant d’entendre M. Bush annoncer qu’il va « démocratiser » le monde en général et le Grand Moyen-Orient en particulier.

Sandro Cruz : Précisez s’il vous plaît, électeurs et grand électeurs sont-ils les mêmes personnages ? Les mêmes cadres du parti ?

Thierry Meyssan : : Non, non. Il y a une confusion qui provient du langage. Dans un système à deux degrés, la terminologie des sciences politiques distingue les électeurs de base, des grands électeurs. Mais aux États-Unis, le mot « électeur » ne s’applique qu’aux grands électeurs, car dans les premières décennies des États-Unis, le peuple ne participait pas aux consultations électorales.

Ainsi, le président des États-Unis est élu par un « Collège électoral » de 538 membres. Chaque État dispose d’autant de grands électeurs qu’il a de sièges de parlementaires (députés et sénateurs) au Congrés. Les colonies, comme Porto Rico ou l’ile de Guam sont exclues du processus.

Chaque État choisit ses propres règles pour désigner ses grands électeurs. Dans la pratique, elles tendent à s’harmoniser. Aujourd’hui, tous les États —sauf le Maine et le Nebraska qui ont inventé des systèmes complexes— considèrent que les grands électeurs représentent la majorité de leur population.

Dans le cas où les grands électeurs ne parviendraient pas à dégager une majorité et que l’on aurait deux candidats ex-aequo, c’est la Chambre des représentants qui élirait le président et le Sénat qui élirait le vice-président.

Sandro Cruz : Les primaires permettent-elles ou non aux électeurs de choisir les candidats ? Quel est le rôle des super-délégués ?

Thierry Meyssan : Les primaires et des conventions ont deux objectifs. En interne, elles permettent de tâter le pouls de l’opinion publique et d’évaluer ce que l’on peut lui infliger. En externe, elles donnent au reste du monde l’illusion que cette oligarchie est une démocratie.

On croit souvent que les primaires permettent d’éviter les combines d’état-major et de laisser les militants de base des grands partis choisir leur candidat. Pas du tout. Les primaires ne sont pas organisées par les partis politiques, mais par l’État local ! Elles sont conçues, dans la lignée d’Hamilton, pour garantir le contrôle oligarchique du système et barrer la route aux candidatures dissidentes.

Chaque État a ses propres règles pour désigner ses délégués aux Conventions fédérales des partis. Il y a six méthodes principales, plus des méthodes mixtes. Parfois, il faut être encarté au parti pour voter, parfois les sympathisants peuvent voter avec les militants, parfois tous les citoyens peuvent voter aux primaires des deux partis, parfois ils peuvent tous voter mais uniquement à la primaire du parti de leur choix, parfois les deux partis tiennent une primaire commune à un tour, d’autres fois encore à deux tours, Toutes les combinaisons de ces méthodes sont possibles. Chaque primaire, dans chaque État, a donc un sens différent.

Et puis il y a des États qui n’ont pas de primaires, mais des caucus. Par exemple, l’Iowa organise des scrutins distincts dans chacun de ses 99 comtés, qui élisent des délégués locaux, lesquels tiennent des primaires au second degré pour élire les délégués aux Conventions nationales. C’est très exactement le système du prétendu « centralisme démocratique » cher aux Staliniens.

Traditionnellement, ce cirque commence en février et dure six mois, mais cette année le parti démocrate a modifié son calendrier. Il a avancé le début et voulu répartir les dates pour faire durer le plaisir presque une année complète. Cette décision unilatérale n’a pas été facile à mettre en œuvre et a provoqué beaucoup de désordre car, je le répète, les primaires et caucus ne sont par organisés par les partis, mais par les États.

À la fin, les délégués se retrouvent à la Convention de leur parti. Ils y sont rejoints par les super-délégués. Lesquels, contrairement à ce que leur dénomination laisse croire, ne sont délégués par personne. Ce sont des membres de droit, c’est-à-dire des notables et des apparatchiks. Les super-délégués représentent l’oligarchie et sont suffisamment nombreux pour faire pencher la balance dans un sens ou l’autre, en passant outre le résultat des primaires et causus. Ils seront environ 20 % à la convention démocrate et presque 25 % à la convention républicaine (mais là ce ne sera qu’une formalité puisque McCain reste le seul en lice).

Sandro Cruz : À quoi servent les primaires et caucus par État ? Comment doit-on les interpréter ?

Thierry Meyssan : Je viens de vous le démontrer, ils ne servent à rien. Tout au moins pour ce qui concerne la désignation des candidats. Par contre, ce grand show permet de réduire la conscience politique des États-Uniens à presque zéro. Les grands médias nous tiennent en haleine en comptabilisant les délégués et les dons. On parle désormais de la « course » à la Maison-Blanche et de records, comme s’il s’agissait d’un téléthon ou de la Star Academy.

On maintient artificiellement un « suspens » pour capter l’attention des foules et marteler le plus grand nombre de fois possible un message. Avez vous observé le nombre de fois où les grands médias nous ont annoncé que ce mardi serait décisif ? Mais à chaque fois, un résultat inexplicable permet au candidat en difficulté de rebondir pour que le show continue. En réalité, le spectacle est truqué. Dans 17 États, des machines à voter ont été installées sans aucune possibilité de vérification des résultats électroniques [1]. Autant ne pas voter du tout et laisser les organisateurs se débrouiller tout seuls pour inventer les résultats.

Tout cela s’accompagne de messages subliminaux douteux. Par exemple, McCain a choisi comme slogan la « défense de la liberté et de la dignité ». Ce qu’il explicite comme la liberté religieuse et l’abolition de l’esclavage. On a quand même du mal à croire que ce soit là les préoccupations premières des citoyens de base. À qui s’adresse donc ce slogan ?
Mme Clinton affiche : « Chacun a une place ». Elle veut dire que, si elle était au pouvoir, personne ne serait laissé sur le bord du chemin. Mais cela signifie aussi que les gens doivent rester à leur place et qu’ils ne doivent pas s’aviser d’en changer et se de mêler des affaires de l’oligarchie.
Obama, quant à lui, apparaît avec le slogan « Change » écrit sur son pupitre. Cela veut dire que les États-Unis ont besoin de changement, mais cela fait aussi bureau de change. Le mot « change » en anglais désigne la monnaie que l’on rend. En pleine crise financière, c’est assez distrayant.

Sandro Cruz : Dans un article récent [2], vous avez écrit que le président des États-Unis est toujours l’homme du complexe militaro-industriel. Dans cette optique, pensez-vous que John McCain sera élu ?

Thierry Meyssan : Là encore, vous posez la question à l’envers. Les trois principaux candidats en lice sont en train de multiplier les signes d’allégeance au complexe militaro-industriel. C’est une mise aux enchères dans laquelle McCain n’a effectivement pas besoin de faire ses preuves, mais où ses concurrents ne sont pas en reste. Ainsi, nous avons entendu Obama se proposer pour bombarder le Pakistan et, il y a quelques jours, nous avons vu Clinton menacer l’Iran d’être « enlevé » de la carte par le feu nucléaire. Qui peut dire mieux ?

Après des mois de campagne, ces trois candidats sont arrivés à un consensus absolu sur les principaux points de politique étrangère et de défense :
Ils considèrent que la défense d’Israël est un objectif stratégique des États-Unis ; ils n’ont aucun plan de sortie d’Irak ; ils présentent l’Iran et le Hezbollah libanais comme une menace majeure pour la stabilité internationale.

Cependant, il existe une différence entre ces candidats et elle correspond au débat qui vient de se clore au sein du complexe militaro-industriel. McCain et son conseiller Kissinger soutiennent le principe de l’affrontement direct tandis qu’Obama et son conseiller Brzezinski proposent la domination par proxies interposés. Clinton et sa conseillère Albright incarnent un impérialisme normatif qui n’est plus de mise. J’écris souvent sur Voltairenet.org à propos de ce débat stratégique (notamment au moment du rapport des agences de renseignement sur l’Iran [3] et de la démission de l’amiral Fallon [4]) et c’est de lui que dépend la désignation du prochain président.

Dans l’article que vous citez, j’ai noté que Clinton n’avait pas la confiance du complexe militaro-industriel. Je n’ai pas changé d’avis. Sa thématique n’intéresse plus l’industrie d’armement. Et ses contorsions, qu’il s’agisse de sa fréquentation secrète de la Fellowship Foundation ou de ses déclarations maximalistes sur l’Iran, n’y changeront rien. Au moment où vous m’interrogez, dire que « Clinton est cuite » n’est pas original, c’était le titre d’un quotidien new-yorkais la semaine dernière. Mais je l’ai écris alors que la presse européenne la portait encore au pinacle.

Ne nous laissons pas submerger par les problématiques que nous imposent les grands médias. Savoir si les États-Unis vont maintenir avec McCain 100 000 GI et 200 000 mercenaires en Irak ou s’ils vont avec Obama diminuer le nombre de GI’s et augmenter celui des mercenaires ne change pas grand chose. La vraie question, c’est de savoir si les États-Unis ont encore les moyens de leurs ambitions et peuvent gouverner le monde —comme les néoconservateurs persistent à la prétendre— ou s’ils sont minés de l’intérieur et doivent abandonner leur rêve impérial pour éviter l’effondrement —comme l’a déjà expliqué la Commission Baker-Hamilton—. Or, la vertigineuse baisse du dollar a sonné la fin de l’empire. Il fallait 8 dollars, pour acheter un baril de pétrole il y a dix ans. Il en faut 135 aujourd’hui et il en faudra probablement 200 dans deux mois. En outre, la débandade des milices du clan Hariri, qui ont pris la fuite et
abandonné le terrain au Hezbollah en quelques heures en jetant leurs armes dans les poubelles, montre qu’il n’est plus possible de sous-traiter la police de l’empire.

Dans ces conditions, McCain n’offre plus aucun intérêt pour l’oligarchie. Obama et Brzezinski sont les seuls porteurs d’un projet alternatif : sauver l’empire en privilégiant l’action secrète (peu onéreuse) sur la guerre (trop coûteuse).

Sandro Cruz : Effectivement, c’est très étonnant de voir que Barak Obama qui dit vouloir un changement dans la société états-unienne ait choisi comme conseiller Brzezinski, quand on sait que ce dernier est un idéologue qui s’est impliqué dans des opérations secrètes sordides, des coup d’États, des sabotages divers et d’autres actions criminelles.

Thierry Meyssan : : J’ai rencontré Zbignew Brzezinski [5], il y a trois semaines [6], je l’ai entendu développer un discours déjà parfaitement rodé du renouveau US. Il a condamné tous les excès visibles de la politique bushienne, de Guantanamo à l’Irak, et habilement rappelé ses succès contre l’Union soviétique.

Cependant je ne pense pas que le prochain président des États-Unis aura le loisir de mettre en œuvre une nouvelle « grande stratégie ». Il est déjà trop tard. Barak Obama sera confronté à la cessation de paiement de plusieurs États fédérés, qui ne pourront plus verser les salaires de leurs fonctionnaires, ni assurer les services publics [7]. Il sera trop occupé par le chaos intérieur pour réaliser les plans de Brzezinski.

Sandro Cruz

Vice-président du Réseau Voltaire et directeur de l’Agencia informe de prensa internacional (IPI).

[1] « Comment truquer les primaires US », Réseau Voltaire, 3 février 2008.

[2] « La continuité du pouvoir US, derrière la Maison-Blanche », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 24 février 2008.

[3] « Washington décrète un an de trêve globale », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 3 décembre 2007.

[4] « La démission de l’amiral Fallon relance les hostilités en Irak », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 13 mars 2008.

[5] « La stratégie anti-russe de Zbigniew Brzezinski », par Arthur Lepic, Réseau Voltaire, 22 octobre 2004.

[6] La princesse Dariga Nazarbayeva avait invité à Almaty (Khazakhstan) M. Brzezinski comme orateur du débat d’ouverture de l’Eurasian Media Forum et M. Meyssan comme orateur au débat de clôture. Cette conférence annuelle rassemble des analystes politiques et les grands médias de Russie, de Chine et d’Asie centrale.

[7] « USA : la crise des subprimes menace la moitié des États fédérés de faillite », Réseau Voltaire, 30 janvier 2008.

abc shouldn't be the first primary

.
Kucinich files complaint on ABC debate

source AP

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer 23 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich filed a complaint with the FCC on Friday after ABC News excluded him, fellow Democrat Mike Gravel and Republican Duncan Hunter from its prime-time debates on Saturday.
Kucinich argued that ABC is violating equal-time provisions by keeping him out of the debate and noted that ABC’s parent Walt Disney Co. had contributed to campaigns involving the four Democrats who were invited.
« ABC should not be the first primary, » the Ohio congressman said in papers filed at the Federal Communications Commission.
ABC said the candidates left out of the debates failed to meet benchmarks for their support that were outlined to each campaign prior to the Iowa caucus. Kucinich did not complain about these rules ahead of time, said spokeswoman Cathie Levine, who had no further comment since she hasn’t seen the FCC filing.
ABC said it hoped to encourage more conversation and interaction among the candidates during the debates, which will both be moderated by Charles Gibson. The stakes are high as candidates take the stage three days before the New Hampshire primary.
The Republican debate will include Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. It starts at 7 p.m. EST.
Shortly after that 90-minute forum, Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson will take the stage at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.
The network set rules to narrow the field. Candidates had to meet at least one of three criteria: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.
Democrats Joe Biden and Chris Dodd took some of the pressure off ABC by quitting the race Thursday night.
« In previous debates where the stage was more crowded you had to make sure all of the candidates got fair time, » said David Chalian, ABC News political director. « Here you will have more time to go in depth on the issues. »
ABC said it believed its rules were inclusive, while also ensuring viewers get a thorough look at the probable next president.
« We’re regretful that we’re not going to be in it, » said Roy Tyler, a spokesman for Hunter. « We’re just going to keep working. I think it’s a mistake on their part to exclude any viable candidate at this point. »
Fox News Channel is sponsoring a debate in its mobile studio Sunday that excludes Paul and Hunter. Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain have been invited.
Each debate will be divided into two parts. During the first 45 minutes, Gibson will select three prominent issues to promote a dialogue. The candidates will be seated and encouraged to talk to each other, and not just to the cameras, Gibson said.
« If I have any personal prejudice against these debates, it’s that you see too much of the moderator, » Gibson said. « I want to see less of the moderator and more of the candidates. »
There won’t be any buzzers or lights on the stage to mark time limits for talking, putting the pressure on Gibson to limit filibusters and promote fairness.
The second half of the debate will be a more traditional format, with Gibson and WMUR-TV political director Scott Spradling asking questions on a variety of topics. Candidates will be asked to keep their answers to a minute, Chalian said.
Gibson said he hoped to have a few minutes where both Republican and Democratic candidates are on the same stage, to promote the idea that despite differences, all are Americans hoping for the best for their country. The auditorium will be quickly emptied between debates and a new audience brought in.
Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos will lead ABC’s coverage. Three hours of live debate with both Republican and Democratic candidates represents a grueling on-air test for Gibson, ABC’s chief news anchor.
« I didn’t volunteer, » he said. « It’s something new, it’s something different. I can fail miserably at this and may well do so but we’re looking for some ways to do something different. »

us: voting machines very suspicious

20 Amazing Facts About
Voting in the USA

by Angry Girl
Nightweed.com

1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold 2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html 3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html 4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886 5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines. http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/031004fitrakis.html 6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee. http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26 http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php 7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates. http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html 8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes. http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html 9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html 10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm 11. Diebold is based in Ohio. http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm 12. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as consultants and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml 13. Jeff Dean was Senior Vice-President of Global Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold. Even though he had been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, Jeff Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold and was largely responsible for programming the optical scanning software now used in most of the United States. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00191.htm http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf 14. Diebold consultant Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years. http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf 15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio. http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html 16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it! (See the movie here: http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov.) http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190 17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml 18. All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=950 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm 19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother. http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/7628725.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10544-2004Oct29.html 20. Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation. http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.html http://uscountvotes.org/

---

See also : The 2004 US Elections: The Mother of all Vote Frauds

---

What Really Happened

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usa_vote_facts.html