The Truth will prevail, but only if we demand it from Congress!

9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004


Home ] 9-11 Inside Job ] Federal Reserve ] Hacking Elections ] Iraq War ] Fake War on Terror ] New World Order ] Media ] Peak Oil-Petro Euros ] Fascism in U.S. ] Editorials ] About Us ] Links ] Contact Us ]


When Votes Disappear
Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked
Campaign 2006- Dirty Tricks
Electronic Voting-Rife with Errors
Election '06: Great Outcome, Flawed Votes
Is 9-11 Truth Dying?
Election Could Have Been Thrown
The Secret World of Robert Gates
Anatomy Of The Midterms
Real Election Winners And Losers
Bush's Election-Eve Message: Lies and Nonsense
Rove Announces Plans to Steal Election
How to Steal Election by Hacking Vote
The Original October Surprise
November Is Gulf Of Tonkin For Next War
Election 2006 & World War III
Lieberman's Insult to Democracy
Coming Lieberman Defeat


2006 Midterm Elections



When Votes Disappear


November 24, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

You know what really had me terrified on Nov. 7? The all-too-real possibility of a highly

suspect result. What would we have done if the Republicans had held on to the House by a

narrow margin, but circumstantial evidence strongly suggested that a combination of vote

suppression and defective — or rigged — electronic voting machines made the difference?


Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked

By Rob Kall

Results Skewed Nationwide In Favor of Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes

A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in

U.S. House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of national

exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national election integrity organization.

These findings have led EDA to issue an urgent call for further investigation into the

2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment.

"We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political conditions

existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape," said attorney Jonathan

Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, "so 'the fix' turned out not to be sufficient

for the actual circumstances." Explained Simon, "When you set out to rig an election, you

want to do just enough to win. The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling,

pre-election polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure--of provoking investigation.

What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7.


Campaign 2006: Dirty Tricks, Undecided Races

by Bob Burnett | Nov 14 2006 - 5:31pm |  

The elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004 featured Republican dirty tricks: extensive voter

suppression and iniquitous vote count manipulation. While 2006 saw some of the latter,

the main GOP tactic was once again voter suppression: either directly by purging valid

names from voter rolls or indirectly by harassing and misleading phone calls.

In roughly 50 key congressional races, likely Democratic voters were bombarded by

automatic phone messages, robo calls, that claimed to be from their candidate, but were

actually attack ads. GOP dirty tricks were an important factor in seven of the eleven

Congressional races whose outcome is yet to be decided.


Electronic Voting Was Rife with Errors on Nov. 7

By Brad Friedman, Computerworld
Posted on November 13, 2006, Printed on November 15, 2006

Terrorizes Florida in Thrill-Kill Rampage

That headline was from a satirical column written by Andy Borowitz published last Monday,

the day before Tuesday's midterm elections. Unfortunately, given the post-election coverage

by some of the nation's leading media -- or at least their headline writers -- it seems that only

an event such as a Diebold voting machine becoming "unmoored from the floor and...trampling

everyone and everything in its path," as Borowitz wrote, would qualify as anything more than

a "glitch," "hiccup," "snag" or "snafu."

"Voting System Worked, With Some Hiccups," declared the AP headline on Wednesday.

"Polling Places Report Snags, but Not Chaos," echoed The New York Times. "Hiccups"?

"Snags"? Try telling that to the thousands of voters around the country who were unable

to simply cast a vote last Tuesday because new, untested electronic voting machines failed

to work. Monumentally. Across the entire country.


Election Could Have Been Thrown, Says Fraud Expert

Beverly Harris considers Token Victory for Democrats

Fixed to Quell Dissent on mass Voting Fraud,  liberal bloggers

begin to attack anyone who doesn't jump on the Pelosi bandwagon



         OR WE ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE, IN 08' !!!



Election '06: Great Outcome, Flawed Votes

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet
Posted on November 10, 2006, Printed on November 12, 2006

Don't confuse a good political outcome with a bad electoral process.

Election integrity activists face a quandary this week. After an Election Day where

new voting machines failed from coast to coast, and GOP-favoring voter suppression

tactics unfolded in state after state, this largely liberal-leaning community knows all too

well that the machinery used to slam the breaks on the dreadful Bush administration is

deeply flawed, that Tuesday night's vote counts shouldn't fully be trusted.


Is 9/11 Truth Dying?

Before you get too excited by the Democratic sweep of Congress and the ability of the

Dems to "balance the power" of the Executive Branch, read Paul Joseph Watson &

Alex Jones' scathing attack on the velvet gloved branch of the one corporate, imperial

party in America. Read this, then post your ideas on making sure that the feel-good,

do-nothing Democratic leadership doesn't take the wind out of the 9/11 truth movement:

"9/11 Truth Is Dying

Many in liberal, progressive, truth community pacified by sham re-arranging of the deck

chairs, desert movement, dilute focus, as Dean and Pelosi promise to protect Bush from impeachment


The Secret World of Robert Gates

by Robert Parry | Nov 9 2006 - 11:23pm

Robert Gates, George W. Bush's choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense

Secretary, is a trusted figure within the Bush Family's inner circle, but there are lingering

questions about whether Gates is a trustworthy public official.

The 63-year-old Gates has long faced accusations of collaborating with Islamic extremists

in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq, and politicizing U.S. intelligence

to conform with the desires of policymakers - three key areas that relate to his future job.

Gates skated past some of these controversies during his 1991 confirmation hearings to

be CIA director - and the current Bush administration is seeking to slip Gates through the

congressional approval process again, this time by pressing for a quick confirmation by the

end of the year, before the new Democratic-controlled Senate is seated.

If Bush's timetable is met, there will be no time for a serious investigation into Gates's past.



Anatomy Of The Midterms: Bye-Bye Coke, Hello Pepsi

By Joshua Frank

10 November, 2006

It’s going to take a little time to get used to it. The Republicans will no longer control

Congress come January. Voters on November 7 stormed the polls to denounce the Bush

administration’s scandal-laden entourage and the occupation of Iraq. One by one they

went down. Even so, the defeat of the neo-cons certainly doesn’t mean Republican values

are on the skids.

You would guess that with the massive anti-Bush uproar the Democrats would now possess

a progressive mandate to reshape the corruption that engulfs Washington. But you’d be

wrong. Many of the Republicans’ substitutes are anti-choice, pro-war, socially conservative

centrists. Of the newly elected House Democrats at least 9 will be joining the conservative

Blue Dog caucus. According to the coalition’s spokesperson Vicky Walling, the organization

had endorsed 16 new candidates this year.


Field Of Screams - The Real Election Winners And Losers

By Joel S. Hirschhorn

09 November, 2006

Forget political correctness. The revolution has NOT arrived! Bush is still president.

The corporate state is safe. The Upper Class has little to fear. Lobbyists will be writing

different names on checks. Winning Democrats will entertain more than they will produce

historic restorative reforms. Did Republicans deserve to lose? Of course!

However, Americans who thought their votes would bring much needed change to our

political system also lost. They just don’t know or admit it yet. As usual, the third-party

movement lost, because the two-party duopoly maintained its stranglehold on our political

system. Populists and true progressives lost. Who or what was the biggest winner? The

short-term and delusional tactic of lesser-evil voting won big.


Bush's Election-Eve Message: Lies and Nonsense

By Robert Parry, Consortium News
Posted on November 6, 2006, Printed on November 7, 2006

In campaign stops across the country, George W. Bush is delivering a medley of his

favorite lies, half-truths and non sequiturs about Iraq and the "war on terror." Yet the

President's listeners seem to revel in the distortions, celebrating with shouts of "USA!

USA!" and responding on cue when Bush has them mock the Democrats.

Some appearances have a Lord of the Flies quality, as excited Republicans rally around

their strong man hailing his pronouncements even when they make little or no sense, or

when they celebrate the misjudgments that led to the disaster in Iraq.


The Elephant in the Polling Booth
By Mark Crispin Miller |  October 1, 2006  

To say that this election could go either way is not to say that the Republicans

have any chance of winning it. As a civic entity responsive to the voters' will,

the party's over, there being no American majority that backs it, or that ever

would. Bush has left the GOP in much the same condition as Iraq, Afghanistan,

the global climate, New Orleans, the Bill of Rights, our military, our economy

and our national reputation. Thus the regime is reviled as hotly by conservatives

as by liberals, nor do any moderates support it.

Even though this election could go either way, neither way will benefit the

Democrats. Either the Republicans will steal their "re-election" on Election

Day, just as they did two years ago, or they will slime their way to "victory"

through force and fraud and strident propaganda, as they did after Election Day

2000. Whichever strategy they use, the only way to stop it is to face it, and then

shout so long and loud about it that the people finally perceive, at last, that their

suspicions are entirely just—and, this time, just say no.


Karl Rove Announces Plans to Steal Election

by David Swanson | Oct 26 2006 - 4:55pm

White House political head honcho Karl Rove was interviewed by National Public

Radio yesterday. He effectively announced plans to steal the coming elections. The polls

point decisively to a Democratic majority in the House, and possibly in the Senate. Yet Rove

told NPR he was certain of Republican majorities in both houses, and gave laughable reasons

for his claim. Rove had no actual evidence to point to.


How to Steal an Election by Hacking the Vote

By Jon "Hannibal" Stokes

One bad apple...

What if I told you that it would take only one person—one highly motivated, but only

moderately skilled bad apple, with either authorized or unauthorized access to the right

company's internal computer network—to steal a statewide election? You might think I

was crazy, or alarmist, or just talking about something that's only a remote, highly

theoretical possibility. You also probably would think I was being really over-the-top if

I told you that, without sweeping and very costly changes to the American electoral process,

this scenario is almost certain to play out at some point in the future in some county or state

in America, and that after it happens not only will we not have a clue as to what has taken

place, but if we do get suspicious there will be no way to prove anything. You certainly

wouldn't want to believe me, and I don't blame you.


The Original October Surprise

By Robert Parry
25, 2006

Editor’s Note: As the United States heads toward a pivotal election on Nov. 7, both

Republicans and Democrats are worried about the prospect of an “October Surprise”

that could alter the political dynamic in the next two weeks.

Though last-minute campaign surprises are probably as old as democracy itself, the

phrase in its modern usage dates back just over a quarter century to 1980 when President

Jimmy Carter was seeking the freedom of 52 American hostages in Iran. Then-vice presidential

candidate George H.W. Bush fretted publicly that a hostage release might be an “October Surprise”

that would catapult Carter to reelection.

Ironically, however, the 1980 “October Surprise” controversy came to refer to an alleged dirty

trick by Bush and other Republicans that thwarted Carter from gaining the hostages’ freedom.

Carter’s failure propelled Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. to a landslide victory.

Arguably, the “October Surprise” of 1980 ushered in the modern era of GOP dominance,

with the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations. Arguably, too, the Democrats’ failure

in December 1992 to get the truth out about the Republican chicanery set the stage for the Right’s congressional resurgence in 1994 and for today’s George W. Bush Era.

So, given the importance of the 1980 election in shaping today’s political terrain – and given

the current interest in what might happen in the days ahead – we are publishing a series about

the original October Surprise adapted from Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the

Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq:


Election 2006 & World War III

By Robert Parry
September 7, 2006


As Americans go to the polls in two months, they should have one thought fixed in

their minds: they will be voting on whether to commit the nation to fighting World War

III against large segments of the world’s one billion Muslims. Beyond the cost in blood

and treasure, this war will mean the end of the United States as a democratic Republic.


November Is The Gulf Of Tonkin For The Next War And

The One Party State

Battle Cry For Billionaires, Broadcasters, and Bloggers

By Brent Budowsky

Created Sep 13 2006 - 10:39am

The Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution , promoted through fear and falsehood, created a dark

and unalterable road on the path to war and tragedy in Vietnam . The Iraq Resolution

in 2002, promoted through fear and falsehood, created a dark and unalterable road on

the path to war and tragedy in Iraq .

For the first time in the history of our Republic, the coming election in November is

nothing less than a national referendum, in which the American people will be voting

whether to pursue, or prevent, the next dark and unalterable road to tragic and unwise war.



Lamont's Victory & Lieberman's Insult to Democracy

 & the Democratic Party


At the end of every gut-wrenching horror movie, when the hero seems finally to have vanquished

the enemy, there is always that last moment where the enemy, lying lifeless on the floor, finds a

last gasp to fire off one final round, usually dealing a fatal blow to one of the good guys. In the incredible

story that concluded tonight in Connecticut, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Ned Lamont was the

successful hero, representing the hopes and dreams or ordinary citizens by mounting a truly grassroots

campaign against Joe Lieberman's massive warchest of corporate cash and universal support from

Washington, D.C.'s cabal of lobbyists, pundits and insiders. Yet, in his last coughing gasps, Lieberman

is now saying he will, in fact, fire off that last spiteful round - right into the gut of the Democratic Party.


'The Message in the Coming Lieberman Defeat: It's More than the War'
August 07 @ 10:09:14 EDT

The Democratic voters of Connecticut –apparently about to reject Senator Joe Lieberman in

Tuesday's primary-are poised to send the national Democratic Party a message. And the media

are poised to help the Democrats, and the nation as a whole, to misinterpret it.

It's all about the war in Iraq, the media will tell us.

But this over-simplification obscures the heart of the matter: that citizens are not only opposing

the war but are struggling for a way to deal with America's present deeper crisis.

A former advisor to Lieberman, quoted in a recent article in The New Republic, explains why

rank-and-file Democrats are furious with Lieberman but not with his fellow war-supporter, Senator

Biden: "Here's somebody [Biden] who voted for the war, continues to say that we should be there,

but is absolutely critical of Bush and how he handled it. And so, as a result, he gets a pass. It's how

Lieberman talks about the war that people can't stand. He comes across as not necessarily being

pro-war but being pro-Bush."