|
Jan 4 commentary
"For links to the articles I read on the air, guest
websites, archived shows, my commentaries, a listener's
discussion forum, and the text of Mark Stanneart’s latest
commentary, visit: www.rabblerousing.org."
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Rhode Island on Tuesday became the 11th
state to legalize medical marijuana and the first since the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in June that patients who use the drug can
still be prosecuted under federal law. The law allows seriously
ill patients to grow up to 12 marijuana plants or buy 2.5 ounces
of marijuana to relieve their symptoms. The law requires them to
register with the state and get a photo identification card.
Federal law prohibits any use of marijuana, but Maine, Vermont,
Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon
and Washington allow it to be grown and used for medicinal
purposes.
Next item: I still think that gov arnie blew it by refusing
to save tookie Williams, but the sac news and review had an
interesting postscript. The article was way too long, as it
belabored a single point, but the point is worth repeating. Much
was made of the fact that Williams was nominated for a nobel
peace prize. Turns out that any professor of the social
sciences, any judge or legislator from any country on earth can
nominate anyone for a nobel peace prize, for any reason, or no
reason at all. Seems there are no criteria for nominating. The
article cites the fact that in the past Adolph Hitler, and
joseph stalin, had been nominated for nobel peace prizes. So
williams may have redeemed himself, and as I opinioned, he had
become quite useful to the society he once savaged, but citing
the fact that he had been nominated for the nobel peace prize
was not the strong arguing point some thought it was.
Next item: you got to just love it. The bush cabal is caught
spying on us citizens, an offence so clearly forbidden by the us
constitution that one wonders why impeachment is not immediately
demanded by every elected representative of all political
persuasions. It gets worse. The ny times admits it sat on the
story for over one year, at the behest of guess who? the white
house. Is there any uproar over this transgression of our basic
constitutional rights? Is there any uproar over the nations
leading newspaper being toady to the white house and not
printing "all the news that’s fit to print"? ok, a
few democrats had the cajoles to complain , but the largest fuss
in republican ranks is not over the fact that bush lied in
public over and over again, claiming he would never do that, at
a time when he was in fact doing exactly that, but over who
leaked the story. The simple question to ask any republican is
this: is there any thing at all that king george must ask the
congress to approve, or is he entitled to do anything and
everything he pleases, as long as he justifies it by his war on
terror? The follow up question is of course: since he is above
all laws, and there are now no checks or balances on his power,
by definition, he now has unlimited power. Doesn’t that make
him a dictator? I suppose one could then ask them how they feel
supporting a dictatorship, but I don’t think I want to hear
their answer to that one. It would make the start of new year
just too depressing.
Next item: I want to start the new year on a positive note,
so I now bring you some gems from our dear king george. These
are direct quotes, directly from the mouth of our esteemed
leader, during the year just past.
-- to a divorced mother of three : "You work three jobs?
. Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is
fantastic that you're doing that."
turning to his aides while surveying Hurricane Katrina flood
damage from Air Force One "It's totally wiped out. ... It's
devastating, it's got to be doubly devastating on the
ground."
more on hurricane Katrina: "We've got a lot of rebuilding
to do. First, we're going to save
lives and stabilize the situation. And
then we're going to help these
communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some
to see it now -- that out of this chaos
is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast,
like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house
-- he's lost his entire house -- there's
going to be a fantastic house. And
I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." (Laughter)
--touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala.
here’s another: "See, in my line of work you got to keep
repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult
the propaganda."
and there was this gem: "This notion that the United States
is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having
said that, all options are on the table."
ready for more? "I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social
Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the
issue. I guess, it's the mother in me."
and my personal favorite: king geo was explaining his Social
Security Reform Proposal at a public meeting.
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I don't really understand. How is the new
plan going to fix the problem?
here in its full magnificence was his response: verbatim. For
those of you still too hung over to remember what verbatim
means: it means this is exactly what our esteemed great leader
said.
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Because the -- all which is on the table
begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how
benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table.
Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price
increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that
are being considered. And when you couple that, those different
cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal
accounts, the idea
is to get what has been promised more likely to be - or
closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any
sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of
things that cause the --like, for example, benefits are
calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the
increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate
-- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed
to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the
red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast
benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if
those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the
--explaining his plan to save Social Security "Because the
- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost
drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example,
is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage
increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of
the formula that are being considered. And when you couple
that, those different cost drivers, affecting those
- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get
what has been promised more likely to be - or closer
delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to
you? It's kind of muddled." Yeah george. It is kind of
muddled.
Well, all that, in only one year. I can hardly wait for this
years gems.
I think that Canadian official had it dead right when she
exited a meeting with king geo and uttered to the waiting press,
‘]"that man is a moron".
You know, as a concerned citizen, I fear the rule of the
moron and his cabal, but as someone who maliciously enjoys
political humor I have to be grateful that bush stole both
elections. Al gore and john kerry put together couldn’t
provide as much humor as jolly ole king geo. He is a classic.
Humor at end: . .and finally, this gem from Woody Allen :
.mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and
utter hopelessness; the other to total extinction. Let us
pray we have the wisdom to choose
correctly.
this tretis is also available on my website.
Deseret Morning News out of utah By Elaine Jarvik
The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically
one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that
official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham
Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned
explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says
Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for
peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to
those of previous skepticsJones, who conducts research in fusion
and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent,
international scientific investigation "guided not by
politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations
and calculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted
in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes
— which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes.
"Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the
WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the
explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's
no point in doing that until we do the scientific
investigation."
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11
Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened
on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building
known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires
caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse
— can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk
science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11,
but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies
tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk
science.' "
In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in
the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier,
Jones offers these arguments:
• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically,
falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with
"controlled demolition" — and even then it's very
difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake
straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling
over' falls would require much less work and would do much more
damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where
would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the
buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry
data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong
evidence for an 'inside' job."
• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC
buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can
effectively sever steel columns, he says.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in
6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an
object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is
the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum,
one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks.
"That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors —
and intact steel support columns — the fall must be
significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the
upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum
in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says,
"is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis,
whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material,
including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed
collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA,
NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically
be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material
in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the
buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand
this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing
— and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded
reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed
proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when
pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he
says.
• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it
would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to
evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel
can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel
from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and
office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in
any given location, he says.
• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade
Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction
of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says.
Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient
directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of
metal," Jones says.
• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported
by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these
explosions occurred far below the region where the planes
struck, he says.
Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC
collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who
had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing
that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came
down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of
you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around
me started applauding."
Following several months of study, he presented his findings
at a talk at BYU in September.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899
photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for
"independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze
a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.
ernest partridge in the crisis papers :
'In 2006, voting fraud is the keystone issue significance of the
election fraud issue can not be overstated. The fate of our
republic turns on how this issue is dealt with and resolved in
the coming year. On the one hand, the Bush Administration, the
Republican party and the Republican Congress, with the
continuing connivance of the corporate media and the persistent indifference
of the Democratic party, may
successfully resist public demands for electoral reform, and
consequently the existing system of unverifiable voting and
secret software will remain in place. If so, then the
Republicans will surely retain control of the Congress,
regardless of the will of the American people.
On the other hand, if, at last, it becomes irrefutably clear to
a large portion of the general public that the 2000 and 2004
presidential elections were stolen, along with key congressional
races in 2002, and if indictments follow and a fair election
ensues, then public outrage will result in the Democratic
control of at least one, and more likely, both houses of
Congress. Still worse will then be in store for those who stole
our elections and our democracy, as the congressional Democrats
gain the power of subpoena and the threats of perjury and
contempt of Congress. The likely outcome will be the
disintegration of the Republican conspiracy, and the relegation
of that party to minority status for the next generation.
The ballot is the heart of democracy. If one party
"owns" the ballot box, it owns the government, for
that party is no longer answerable to the will of the people; it
rules without the "consent of the governed." Thus it
is no wonder that the Bush regime and the GOP want to keep this
issue off the public agenda. We can't allow them to succeed.
It's as simple as that.
let me interrupt this article to quote that astute political
observer joseph stalin: " it doesn’t matter how people
vote. It only matters how the votes are counted." The
Busheviks, their Congressional toadies, and their fat-cat
sponsors are fully aware of the stakes. Not only do they want to
remain in power and keep their ill-gotten booty, many of them
want desperately to stay out of the federal slammer.
Accordingly, there may virtually nothing that they might not
resort to in order to avoid this outcome. Things could get very
nasty.
So it all comes down to this: voting fraud is the keystone issue
for this year. If the keystone remains intact and in place, the
structure will endure, and the United States will continue along
the road toward oligarchy and despotism. Remove the keystone,
and the structure will collapse, opening the possibility for a
restoration of the rule of law and of a government of, by, and
for the people.
At this moment the outcome of the struggle for ballot integrity
is uncertain and is, in no small part, in the hands of ordinary
American citizens, for our political establishment and our
corporate media have forsaken us and our republic, while the
ostensible "opposition party" is AWOL. It is up to us
in our everyday, face-to-face-dealings with our fellow citizens,
and through our remaining mode of public communication, the
internet, to force the issue into the mainstream media, on to
the agenda of a reluctant Democratic Party, and into the
criminal courts.
Despite the coordinated and so-far successful effort by the
media and the GOP to keep the election fraud issue contained,
the pressure under the lid of media and establishment silence is
rising, as more and more evidence of stolen elections and of the
vulnerability of computerized voting seeps into public
awareness. This evidence includes: the report of the
Congressional General Accountability Office, the spectacular
"hacking" demonstrations in Florida, statistically
impossible polling vs. voting discrepancies in the 2005 Ohio
election, leaks from whistle blowers within the e-voting
industry, and the actual and pending decertification of
paperless touch-screen machines in a growing list of counties
and states. Add to all this the continuing output of articles
and now books by Mark
Crispin Miller, by Bob
Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, by John
Conyers and his congressional colleagues,
and soon still another book by the statistician, Steven Freeman.
There is, however, little direct evidence of fraud, that is to
say, evidence obtained through examination of the machines and
their software or of controlled experiments with these machines.
There is little direct evidence simply because the manufacturers
will not allow it, and no courts or government agencies have
successfully demanded such scrutiny. This refusal by the
e-voting companies brings to mind numerous troubling
"how-come" questions which, as long as they remain
unanswered, must be added to the weight of evidence of electoral
fraud.. Among these questions:
1. Why must the software ("source codes") in the
machines be kept secret? Diebold is so insistent that its codes
be kept secret that, rather than disclose them to North Carolina
election officials as required by state law, they
withdrew their machines from that state.
Why is this? The companies reply that they keep these codes
secret to prevent copyright infringement. That defense is absurd
on its face. Musical and written works are, by their nature,
intrinsically "open" - fully available to potential
plagiarists. Yet music and text are effectively protected by
copyright. Likewise, publicly sold and distributed software.
Furthermore, the source codes could be examined by independent
software experts on condition that they remain secret. No dice,
say the companies. Because there is no conceivably benign reason
why e-voting software should be kept secret, even from the
restricted scrutiny of public officials, one is compelled to
conclude that expert examination of the software would give the
game away.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, we ask: What possible
advantage to the Republicans and the e-voting companies is
gained by their refusal to publish their source codes and to
allow independent expert examination of the systems and
effective validation of vote totals? What advantage, that is to
say, other than the ability to alter vote totals and steal
elections at will? This persisting issue of ballot integrity is
causing the companies and the GOP enormous problems. As noted
above, bad publicity attending this controversy is having a
serious impact upon the value of Diebold stock, prompting
stockholder lawsuits. The same publicity is causing widespread
and growing public doubt about the legitimacy of the Bush
Administration and the Republican control of Congress. What is
more important to a private company than "the bottom
line"? What is more important to a political party than the
public perception of its legitimacy? If, as the companies and
the GOP insist, e-voting is completely honest and reliable, why
not allow definitive proof thereof? If such exculpatory proof is
forthcoming and widely publicized (as it most assuredly would
be), company profits and stock prices would immediately soar,
Republican political control would be solidified, and its
critics permanently discredited and silenced.
Come on, Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia and the Republican National
Committee. Why won't you allow, indeed insist upon and promote,
definitive validation of the accuracy and security of e-voting?
What conceivable advantage is gained by this continuing
resistance and secrecy? What advantage, other than the
continuing control of the ballot and thus of the government? Tell
us - if you can!
Amazingly, the official Democratic Party, along with some
prominent progressive publications, websites and personalities
have bought the GOP line, refusing to face the evidence of vote
fraud, much less deal with it. Salon.com, TomPaine.com, Mother
Jones, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Paul Begala,
Arianna Huffington, fearful of appearing as "sore
losers" and "paranoid nuts," are all serving as
"useful idiots" to the Great GOP Fraud Machine. But
why? Perhaps they simply can not bring themselves to believe
that a crime of such magnitude has been committed against our
republic and its citizens. Another intriguing explanation that I
heard somewhere from the Democratic establishment, is that if
the party talks up the voting fraud issue, "the base"
will not show up at the polls on election day. Well, so
what?! If the election is rigged so that the GOP can't lose,
what does it matter whether or not the base shows up?
And so, ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the
Democrats and progressives prattle on about "taking back
the Congress in November."
"Wait 'till next time!" Well, 2000, 2002, and 2004
were "next time." The voters gave us those elections,
and the damnable machines and conniving GOP Secretaries of State
took them away! And unless we clean up the election process,
and pronto!, they will surely do it again next nov
And as we strive to take back our elections, and thence our
country, we must not forget that problem is not confined to
paperless touch-screen voting machines and secret software. For
as the 2004 Ohio fiasco vividly demonstrated, even if
touch-screen machines were made totally reliable, that would not
assure valid elections. Let us not forget Kathryn Harris'
infamous purge list, Ken Blackwell's myriad attempts to suppress
Democratic registration, and the misallocation of voting
machines. There is evidence that much of the switching and
alteration of vote totals was accomplished, not only by
individual touch-screen machines, but also at regional
compilation centers. The theft of the 2004 election was a
many-faceted enterprise.
When Nixon resigned the Presidency in August, 1974, the would-be
oligarchs in the GOP had two options: henceforth play by the
rules, or take control of the three institutions that brought
down Nixon - the media, the appellate courts, and the threat of
electoral defeat. Clearly, they chose to take control of these
institutions. So now they have the media and the courts on their
side, and they have neutralized the threat of the ballot.
. Now what do i propose that we do about it?" Here are some
suggestions.
1. Light a fire under the Democrats. If you get a solicitation
for donations from the Democratic National Committee or the
Senate and House Campaign Committees, send them back with a
message: tell them "no dice" unless they address the
voting issue. Instead, send your donations to the election
reform organizations listed
here. [The list will be on my web
site next week]
2. If your Senator or Congressperson is a republican-lite DINO
(Democrat in name only), urge someone to oppose the DINO in the
primary and give that alternative candidate your support. The
challenger may lose, but even so the "republicrat" on
the Democratic ticket will still get the message. 3. Boycott the
mainstream media and their sponsors - and let them know that you
are doing so, and why. Conversely, reward those rare journalists
such as Keith Olbermann who dare to report crucial issues, such
as electoral integrity.
4. Demand that your state Attorney General or Secretary of
State, and your local district attorneys, investigate and
prosecute voting fraud.
5. Demonstrate, send letters to the state capitals and to
Washington, support election reform organizations, and talk-up
the issue among friends and associates whenever possible. Shout
bloody murder, and raise Hell. Tell the world that "you're
mad as Hell and you aren't going to take it any more!"
|
