"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."

I don’t know how your short term or medium term memory is, but before the last presidential election I predicted that king geo had no chance of winning a fair election, as no one who voted for his previous rival would switch sides after 4 years of his misrule, and he had bleeped off so many large blocks of voters who had previously believed his campaign promises and voted for him once but would not do so again, that he couldn’t possibly gain a single vote more than he squeaked by in the previous reelection, and he would lose plenty of votes he had previously gotten. Well as we all know, the key phrase was fair elections. This nov we will have mid term elections and the same forces are at work. And since that stolen election, How many towns across America have had someone they know come home in a box or with missing limbs from our oil wars in Afghanistan and iraq? How many Americans still approve of their friends and loved ones dying for Halliburton, bechtel and the oil companies? So, How many voters who voted dem in the last election now think king geo and his neocon advisors are doing such a cracker jack job that they will switch sides and vote republican? Show of hands now. I thought so. The republicans have bleeped off even more major blocks of voters than last time. There are more poor folks than rich folks. The disparity grows daily. So how do the rich guys keep getting their guys elected and reelected, in spite of all the scandals, and in spite of the obvious rip off of average Americans by the neocons doing the bidding of corporate america? What a mystery. Say, Aren’t those electronic voting machines and opti scan vote counting machines cool? I love technology, don’t you?

The folks who believe in the prior existence of atlantis say that that civilization destroyed itself by letting its technology run rampant with no moral or ethical control. Welcome to the new atlantis. We live in it.

Next item: one of modern histories truly great scams is about to end. Maybe. READ MILITARY CONTRACT ARTICLE

Ok, boys and girls. Quiz time. 3 companies now get to bid on lucrative contracts instead of just one. One of the three is still paying vp cheney royalties on their profits. The other 2 are not. So, who do you think will get the majority of the contracts? The winner of this exciting quiz will receive a personally signed full frontal nude photo of our esteemed vp. Hurry up now and send in your answers. So, where are we now? This same article states that of the $18 billion allocated, over 2/3 has already been spent. That’s 12 billion of your tax dollars. 3 years of no competitive contracts, most of them going to dick cheneys Halliburton corp and what do we have to show for it? Many of our troops still live in squalor. Poor meals, we are overcharged for. Bathing in contaminated water. Afraid to walk outside of their military bases, and often afraid to even drive in poorly armored humvees. Perhaps more importantly, what does iraq have to show for it? No electicity, no drinkable water and often no running water at all, no security for its citizens. Life for almost every Iraqi is unquestionably far worse than under saddam. That is so tragic its almost impossible to believe, but the Iraqi man and woman in the street affirms this sad fact , every time they are asked. But there is the positive side. Ta ta ta ta. Iraq now has 14, count em, 14 giant permanent American military bases, and the worlds largest embassy that is actually a fortress from which the Americans can control their country forever. Saddam had his palaces and now the Americans will have theirs. Another victory for democracy, American neo con style. We are obviously winning hearts and minds right and left. Whoopee.

Next item: Gv union mon july 31 article titled: PAC raises $446K Doolittle staff defends itself against 'slush fund' charge Leadership political action committees have been a popular way of fundraising and tightening party connections for District 4 Representative John Doolittle, the Roseville Republican incumbent facing Roseville Democratic challenger Charlie Brown in the Nov. 7 election.
Leadership PACs provide people a way to increase the amount of money they are donating to a candidate, said a spokesperson for some Fed Elections group. Leadership PACs are not considered to be officially "affiliated" with candidates even though the PACs might be controlled by them, he said, Democracy 21, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, has sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives stating, "A member (of the U.S. House) with a leadership PAC can receive a total of $14,200 in contributions from an individual ... more than three times as much as the law allows an individual ... to contribute to support a member's campaign. "Leadership PACs also have served as the modern day equivalent of slush funds," the letter states. "Leadership PACs have been used to make payments to family members that inure to the benefit of members, and to make payments for all kinds of noncampaign 'political' expenditures from trips to meals to gifts and the like."
David Bauer, treasurer for the Doolittle campaign responded "They can call it anything they want,", in response to use of the term "slush fund." "(There's) a lot of stuff permitted that may not be considered polite," he added.
Laura Blackann, Doolittle's government affairs spokesperson, released the following statement regarding the congressman's stance on leadership PACs: "The congressman believes that every American has a First Amendment right to participate in the political process and the congressman is simply exercising this right. Whether a person chooses to donate to individual candidates or create a political action committee, it's a right that should be defended." My Translation of the two statements: screw you, we’ll do whatever we can get away with.
Jack Abramoff, the former lobbyist who pleaded guilty earlier this year to tax evasion, fraud and conspiracy to bribe public officials, gave $10,000 in 2000 to Doolittle's California Superior State Leadership PAC. That year, Doolittle voted against an anti-Internet Gambling Bill that died in Congress. Earlier this month, Doolittle voted in favor of an updated version of the bill that passed the House overwhelmingly.
Todd Stenhouse, spokesperson for Charlie Brown, who is running against Doolittle. called the vote a "flip-flop," saying the difference for the Republican incumbent in 2000 and 2006 was Abramoff's lobbying. Doolittle spokesperson Laura Blackann said the congressman had other reasons for changing his vote, adding that Democratic representatives also voted differently on the two gambling bills. My comment: im sure some dems did also switch their votes. Dems can be bribed too. But what difference does that make? The question remains: did Doolittle switch his vote as result of at least $10.000 being given to him by lobbyist jack abramof?. hopefully voters will consider this question in nov, and more hopefully still, their votes will be counted correctly.