Killin in the name of....?

Killin in the Name of...?

The successes of the Iraq war have been largely overlooked. What?! Success? Yes, the war has been quite successful. So where has this success been felt? Well... mostly in Houston.

For starters, here's whats been going on with some various petroleum products:

Note the dip retail gas prices took right around the mid-term elections in 2006,
despite a relatively steady crude price... Coincidence? Consequently, I'd
expect another dip around this Presidential Election Cycle, so stock up in October &
early November. Also note how high the average price got before the actual price of crude oil started to rise.

And for more up-to-date info:

Gasoline Prices

For National Average type US in the "Enter a State" field


In March of 2002 the average price of a gallon of unleaded fuel was about $1.20. Just days after the invasion, in March of 2003, the
average price was already at $1.72, at the time that was less than one cent below the all time high. The trend of record setting prices,
and profits, has continued ever since. While this puts a serious dent in the pocketbooks of most Americans, it is fattening the wallets
of a few. Today gas is about 72 cents more expensive per gallon than it was a year ago. The Washington-Houston
cartel has now has an uncontested deathgrip on the paychecks of most Americans. The
federal government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on the war in Iraq, which is
the key factor in the ever-rising oil costs.

Here is the gross (as in ridiculously large, not as in "opposed to 'net'") amount of money the top 5 oil companies have earned
companies have earned since the beginning of the Iraq War, for more info regarding this, see previous blog:

Top 5 Gas Companies Profit Since 2003

(JavaScript Error)

Counter Courtesey of LaborLawTalk.com

Since the Iraq invasion of 2003, the price of oil, and therefore the gas we all buy at the pump has been
increasing and setting new record highs. With the price of crude rising,
it would stand to reason that the fuel companies, as well as consumers, would feel this price spike.
However, this is simply not true at all. While the average American has been paying more and more at the
pump, the net profits of the oil companies have soared to unprecedented levels. Not just unprecedented
levels for oil companies, but for any corporation. The third highest recorded quarterly profit for any U.S.
based corporation was posted by Exxon-Mobil during the second quarter of 2006 at a staggering $10,360,000,000.
The highest quarterly profit ever, $10.7 billion, was recorded by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2005. The
2nd & 4th highest quarterly profits are also Exxon, at 10.5 billion in the 3rd quarter of 2006,
and 9.9 billion in the third quarter of 2005. Exxon also holds the top three spots for highest yearly
profits ever, all after the start of the Iraq war, $39.5 billion in 2006, $36.1 billion in 2005,
and $25.3 billion in 2004. Its not all Exxon though, the reserve value of the 5 largest oil companies has
more than doubled during the war to a mind boggling $2.36 trillion, and as one would expect, profits of these companies since
the beginning of the war has also blasted somewhere up into the stratosphere.

Here is what the Iraq War has done to Halliburton's stock:

In case you were wondering just how this meteoric rise in stock is possible, look into
their $3
million dollars in campaign contributions since 1990 and
"cost-plus
contracts." Many of Halliburton's contracts in Iraq are of this type. In a nutshell they
basically reimburse the contractor for expenses and also pay them a profit as a
set percentage of these expenditures. So the more they spend the more they make.
Did I mention these contracts were also "no bid?"

And in case you were wondering about Dick Cheney's personal stock options:

If that doesn't
paint a clear enough picture, its a rise of about 3,281% in little over a year,
or from $241,498 to over $8,000,000. Of course this is all in
addition to his "deferred annual salary" of $205,298 in 2001; $262,392 in 2002;
$278,437 in 2003; and $294,852 in 2004. Despite these millions of dollars Cheney
told "Meet the Press" in 2003 that:

“Since I left Halliburton to become George
Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of
all my financial interest... I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any
kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.”

I guess that $10,000,000
just slipped his mind.

Betchel & Kroll, another war-profiteering company, isn't publicly owned, so it doesn't
have "stock" prices per say, however, these figures also paint a pretty clear picture:

And lets not forget Raytheon, the company that makes most of the missiles the
Federal Government has chosen to shoot at various groups of brown peoples
the world over.  They're
publicly traded, and here are their stock prices:

We were originally told that oil was not a factor in the decision to invade Iraq, as the State Department's
Iraq study group stated "does not have oil on its list of issues." This has become more and more difficult
to believe, if you choose to try, as more information surfaces.

Firstly there was W's statement to the Iraqi people upon the commencement of military action in their country, "I want to talk to the Iraqi
people.... Do not destroy oil wells." That is pretty cut & dry.
Then there was man appointed by the Bush administration to be the interim Iraqi Oil
Minister (To quote journalist Greg Palast: "It is well established that the President of
the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that
appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne."), Ahmed Chalabi is convicted
embezzler and neo-con go-to-guy, and has quite the resume. From fleeing Jordan
after a banking scandal in the 80s to organizing a failed Kurdish resistance in
the 90s and fleeing Iraq, then
becoming a lobbyist for the Iraqi National Congress and recieving $97 mil, then
allegedly misappropriating a significant amount thereof, and later being instrumental
in the passing the fraudulent intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq, he was
just the type of shady character the Bush administration
was looking for.
His appointment was clearly an attempt to make Iraq a subjugated member of OPEC, thereby
raising prices and revenue for the Houston crowd, through decreased production.
So, as it turns out, we were fraudulently led into a war not to get Iraq's oil,
but to limit Iraq's oil production.
Before the war Iraq's oil production was around 4 million barrels a day, since
the war, its
held steady at around 2.1 million barrels per day. Everyone knows what happens
to price when supply is cut by half.
He has also been investigated in Iraq for fraud involving the exchange of Iraqi currency,
grand theft of both national and private assets, and many other criminal charges, as
well as being accused of passing sensitive U.S. information to Iran. Needless to
say, he is not very well regarded in Iraq, or by Iraqis. It was only after all
this that he was appointed as acting Oil Minister. When the permanent Oil
Minister protested IMF austerity, Chalabi was reappointed. More on the IMF at a
later date... By appointing a Houston-friendly Oil Minister the
Washington-Houston thugs were able to implement the
State & Defense Department's plan titled "Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." You may be
wondering what our gov't is doing writing up plans for another nation's oil, but don't worry, it wasn't
written by government officials. The 323 page document was revealed (in 2005 by BBC NewsNight)to have been
written by oil company executives and consultants in Houston well before "Mission Accomplished" was declared
in grand fashion.
 
So, in case you're wondering where the bulk of our taxes
are going, well, actually right now its still paying off the debt incurred during the
Reagan Administration's military buildup, but if you're concerned as to where that money
will be going for the next several decades, I think you have your answer...  Therein
also lies the answer as to why our country is in a constant state of war;
Its good for business.

*All graphs and figures are linked to their original sources.

The War is Going Great

The successes of the Iraq war have been largely overlooked. What?! Success? Yes, the war has been quite successful, for Houston.

Since the Iraq invasion of 2003, the price of oil, and therefore the gas we all buy at the pump has been increasing and setting new record highs. With the price of crude rising, it would stand to reason that the fuel companies, as well as consumers, would feel this price spike. However, this is simply not true at all. While the average American has been paying more and more at the pump, the net profits of the oil companies have soared to unprecedented levels. Not just unprecedented levels for oil companies, but for any corporation. The third highest recorded quarterly profit for any U.S. based corporation was posted by Exxon-Mobil during the second quarter of 2006 at a staggering $10,360,000,000. The highest quarterly profit ever, $10.7 billion, was recorded by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2005. The 2nd & 4th highest quarterly profits are also Exxon, at 10.5 billion in the 3rd quarter of 2006, and 9.9 billion in the third quarter of 2005. Exxon also holds the top three spots for highest yearly profits ever, all after the start of the Iraq war, $39.5 billion in 2006, $36.1 billion in 2005, and $25.3 billion in 2004. Its not all Exxon though, the reserve value of the 5 largest oil companies has doubled during the war to a mind boggling $2.36 trillion. The profits of these companies since the beginning of the war has also blasted somewhere up into the stratosphere, its broken up like this:

Rank	Gas Company	Profits from March of 2003 to 2nd Quarter of 2006
1	Exxon	$101,730,000,000
2	BP	$70,349,000,000
3	Shell	$62,771,000,000
4	Total S.A.	$44,770,000,000
5	Chevron	$42,999,000,000

For a quarterly breakdown of these profits by company, Click here


In March of 2002 the average price of a gallon of unleaded fuel was about $1.20. Just days after the invasion, in March of 2003, the average price was already at $1.72, at the time that was less than one cent below the all time high. The trend of record setting prices, and profits, has continued ever since. While this puts a serious dent in the pocketbooks of most Americans, it is fattening the wallets of a few. Today gas is about 6 cents more expensive than it was a year ago, and about 60 cents higher than it was 6 months ago, most likely due to the election cycle we were experiencing at the time. The Washington-Houston cartel has now has an uncontested deathgrip on the paychecks of most Americans. The federal government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on the war in Iraq, which is the key factor in the ever-rising oil costs.



We were originally told that oil was not a factor in the decision to invade Iraq, as the State Department's Iraq study group stated "does not have oil on its list of issues." This has become more and more difficult to believe, if you choose to try, as more information surfaces.

Firstly there was W's statement to the Iraqi people upon the commencement of military action in their country, "I want to talk to the Iraqi people.... Do not destroy oil wells." That is pretty cut & dry. Then there is Condi's secret meeting with the former Secretary-General of OPEC, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi, and offered Chalabi the job of Oil Minister for Iraq. To quote journalist Greg Palast: "It is well established that the President of the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne." But I digress... This was clearly an attempt to make Iraq a subjugated member of OPEC, thereby raising prices and revenue for the Houston crowd, through decreased production. So, as it turns out, we weren't fraudulently led into a war to get Iraq's oil, but to limit Iraq's oil production. Before the war Iraq's oil production was around 4 million barrels a day, since the war, its held steady at around 2.1 million barrels per day. Everyone knows what happens to price when supply is cut by half. Notably, Fadhil did not take the job as Oil Minister, however Ahmed Chalabi did. A convicted embezzler and neo-con "go-to guy," has quite the resume. From fleeing Jordan after a bank scandal in the 80s to organizing a failed kurdish resistance in the 90s and fleeing Iraq, then becoming a lobbyist for the Iraqi National Congress and recieving $97 mil, and allegedly misappropriating a significant amount thereof, and later being very involved in passing the fraudulent intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq, he was just the type of shady character the neo-cons were looking for. He has also been investigated in Iraq for fraud involving the exchange of Iraqi currency, grand theft of both national and private assets, and many other criminal charges, as well as being accused of passing sensitive U.S. information to Iran. Needless to say, he is not very well regarded in Iraq, or by Iraqis. It was only after all this that he was appointed as acting Oil Minister. When the permanent Oil Minister protested IMF austerity, Chalabi was reappointed. More on the IMF at a later date...

By appointing a Houston-friendly Oil Minister the Washington-Houston thugs were able to implement the State & Defense Department's plan titled "Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." You may be wondering what our gov't is doing writing up plans for another nation's oil, but don't worry, it wasn't written by government officials. The 323 page document was revealed (in 2005 by BBC NewsNight)to have been written by oil company executives and consultants in Houston well before "Mission Accomplished" was declared in grand fashion.

Shop Citgo.

My vote counts, right?

I originally wrot this before the November 2006 elections, but with all the press the 2008 election is getting, i think it is still pertinent.

"Who needs an 'October Surprise' when you've got Diebold." -- Bill Maher


The upcoming November 2006 elections are being referred to as "incumbent unfriendly" by the corporate media. We need not speculate as to why given an increasingly unpopular war, among many other things. Control of the legislature also designates who holds subpoena power over our elected officials. Given the propensity of the Bush administration for breaking United States law (War Crimes Act, 4th Amendment, and many more), as well as international laws and the Geneva Convention (sanctioning the torture of "enemy combatants" as young as fifteen), a shift of power from the Neo-Conservatives could result in members of the administration being tried for a plethora of offenses, and an impeachment of the President. As recent history shows, presidents have been impeached for much less. All this being said, it is extremely important that the elections of this November accurately reflect the will of the people. It is common knowledge that reflecting the will of the people is the very crux of a functional democracy, but its necessity is even more readily apparent given the current situation.


This election also will see even more widespread use of Diebold touch-screen voting systems. Diebold, an Ohio based company, along with ES&S, manufacture almost all of the voting machines that are used in the U.S. today. These companies are headed by two brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich. There were problems Diebold products in the 2004 elections, and these are much more serious problems than just a few simple bugs. Votes switched mysteriously from Kerry to Bush, and large discrepancies between vote totals and the population of certain districts were recorded, among many other things that will be discussed later. Not only were there these reported problems, but there are also unresolved issues regarding the security of both the hardware and software components of these systems. And to top it all off, their certification as voting machines was gained fraudulently. A well-educated citizenry is the best defense against those who would attempt to exploit these vulnerabilities in these new voting systems.


Firstly, you doesn't need to be a legal scholar to know that a legal certification is void if it is obtained fraudulently. This, unfortunately, is the case with the Diebold touch-screen voting systems many of us will likely be using this fall. The certification of these Diebold machines is demonstrably fraudulent.

In 2002 Wyle Laboratories, an Independent Test Authority (ITA) located in Huntsville, AL, was given the job of certifying Diebold's voting system. ITA's certify voting systems to the Federal Election Commission's Voting System Standards. When ITA's are working with a voting system, some aspects, hardware and software, are not subject to certain parts of the qualification testing. These products are labeled as Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products.1 The FEC's rules on what qualifies as COTS and how these items are to be treated are very clear in that these products can not be modified in any manner for use in a voting system2.


Certifying such components would be redundant and time consuming, but accuracy far outweighs whatever advantages a speedy certification may offer. Also, all aspects of voting systems should be tested for security regardless of commercial availability. Since when does the fact that a product can be bought off the shelf at an electronics store mean that it is secure enough to be trusted with counting the nations' votes? Furthermore, Diebold fraudulently labeled their version of Windows Compact Edition as "COTS," as to avoid having it certified by Wyle, thereby not even adhering to the lax standards set forth by the FEC's Voting System Standards. Diebold's leadership made it clear that they did not want their WinCE 3.0 system to be analyzed by Wyle in an internal memo1. In this memo an upper level official says, "We do not want to get Wyle reviewing and certifying the operating systems," among other things4. Why they do not want Wyle certifying the operating systems is not made clear in the memo, but later in this article a likely explanation arises.


Windows CE is not a product like Windows NT, Windows XP, Windows ME, etc. The key difference lies the Windows CE operating system's lowest level, or its "kernel." The kernel for a Windows CE product much be specifically developed for the hardware system it is running on3. A version of Windows CE for a cell phone will not work in a voting machine and visa versa. Diebold must develop code for the voting machines. This, clearly, is a modification for use in a voting system, and thereby disqualifies it as being certified as COTS by the FEC's Voting System Standards.


A former Microsoft employee and Physics Ph. D. Richard R. Lee, who worked specifically on Windows CE, issued a legal declaration on August 6th of this year verifying the above. This is ample evidence that Diebold's voting system's FEC certification was fraudulently obtained and therefore nullified. That being said, the Diebold machines all over the country set to be used in the coming elections cannot legally be considered "voting machines." Needless to say, this is very disturbing.

Many different groups have reached this conclusion, the Election Science Institute (ESI), of San Francisco claimed "The election system, in its entirety, exhibits shortcomings with extremely serious consequences, especially in the event of a close election.6 Additionally the Columbus Dispatch reported on August 16th of this year in reference to the above-mentioned systems "These shortcomings merit urgent attention. Relying on this system in its present state should be viewed as a calculated risk."1 There are far too many more examples to list here.


Fortunately one state, California, has banned the use of these machines due to their lack of security. If Diebold's voting system isn't reliable enough to count the votes of Californians, how can it be reliable to count any citizen's vote? This fact may be inconsequential since it is unlikely that even the Neo-Cons would have enough gall to try and convince the American populous that California could inexplicably turn into a red state.


Secondly, the ease with which the information on the memory card of one of these machines can be manipulated is very disturbing. How easy is it? The newer TSx model has only five Phillips head screws keeping anyone in contact with the machine away from its vulnerable points. Once they are removed the casing comes right off and the PCMCIA (Personal Computer Memory Card International Association) slots are completely exposed.5 With these exposed, it is no problem to load new programs, operating systems, and even boot loading software. Armed only with a PCMCIA card as a removable storage device an attacker could alter the information on that machine with ease. There is also a hidden MMC/SD slot easily accessed once the casing is removed, this could also be a route of delivery for a potential attacker. From the MMC/SD (Multi-Media Card/Secure Data) slots an attacker could introduce a wireless connection to said machine, and anyone can see the inherent security risks there. We should also note both PCMCIA cards and MMC/SD cards are very compact and could easily be concealed in a jacket or pants pocket. Diebold's previous machinery has a similar record with security. The slightly older TS6, (which is used statewide in MD and GA) can also be compromised with only a Phillips head screwdriver.7 A Washington Post article from September 13th revealed that 238 polling locations in Maryland were unable to operate these machines at the time polls were supposed to open, thus possibly disenfranchising thousands.

According to a non-partisan group concerned with these security issues, Black Box Voting, it takes 12 bucks (for a Phillips head screwdriver, Allen wrench, and pliers) and about 4 minutes to remove the memory card from a Diebold optical scanning machine (which will also be used in the upcoming elections), replace it and re-seal everything on the machine, without leaving visible signs of tampering.7


Not only is the hardware extremely vulnerable, but the software is as well. Both Diebold's boot-loading software and version of Windows CE simply check for the correct file name before starting applications. An attacker would only need to rename malicious programs

to match the existing ones, and introduce them via either PCMCIA or MMC/SD card to permanently alter the machine. This is most likely why Diebold did not want Wyle Laboratories looking at their operating system.


Diebold's actual voting program "Ballot Station," is also vulnerable, but when the underlying operating system and boot loading software are already so easily manipulated, tampering with the specific program, which would be more easily noticed, is not necessary.7 Why change the rules when you can switch games and playing fields? This hardly presents a hurdle for anyone attempting to alter the voting record on one of these machines and is utterly unacceptable, particularly given the political climate.

Some states have undertaken significantly expensive PR campaigns for these unsecured machines. One wonders why money would be spent on giving the public a false sense of security about the new voting systems instead of actually making them secure. As our society becomes more saturated with technology it is not surprising that voting, like everything else, would become more computerized. However, American voters would expect a new voting system to be at least as secure, and preferably more so than its predecessor. How can an older voting system be considered obsolete when it is more secure than the newer model? And while every voting system does have a possibility of being manipulated, these machines make it much easier to alter much greater numbers of votes in much less time. What is the likelihood some group would attempt to undermine the will of the American people by altering the votes in the upcoming election? Well, to answer that, we needs only to look back at the 2004 Presidential election.


The election in question saw an unprecedented disparity with the exit polls, as much as 9.5%.6 This is a very substantial discrepancy when the margin of error was +/- 1%. Several polling authorities examined this and found no legitimate confounding variable in their methods. Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, the polling institute conducting the 2004 exit polls attempted to explain this phenomenon with the "reluctant responder" hypothesis, which stated that Bush voter's were less likely to interact with exit

pollers, however even they admit that the reasons for this are "unclear" at best. The Zogby polling institution did not buy it and went as far to deem it "preposterous"6. Not to mention that 3 battleground states had the most "voter anomalies" and in said states the anomalies almost uniformly hurt Kerry and helped Bush. One statistician involved in an independent investigation, Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, found that the odds of all these

events occurring randomly was approximately 1 in 660,000, or to quote the professor, "As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,'' and he goes on to say ''it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.''12 Freeman has even written a book on his statistical analysis of the election titled, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count. Why the mainstream media, and most of the Democratic Party has largely ignored this information is inexplicable. Breaking from most of his constituency, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has attempted to launch legal inquiries and written a very thorough article for Rolling Stone on this matter.


In addition to these statistical anomalies, several incidents raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the 2004 election. The Republican National Committee hired Sproul & Associates, to assist in voter registration in six of the most important states and they were discovered shredding Democratic voter registrations.8

In Warren County, Ohio there was an incident in which GOP officials closed off the building where the votes were being tabulated by citing a terrorist threat issued by the FBI. However, the FBI issued no threat for Warren County that day9. Furthermore, the Cincinnati Inquirer uncovered documents which implicated GOP officials in planning this masquerade at least a week before the election9.

In Auglaize County an election official witnessed a GOP official make an unauthorized login to the computer used to tabulate the county's votes. This may seem innocuous, but in that county, more votes were recorded for each of three Democratic judicial candidates, all of whom were defeated, than for Kerry. One of these candidates was a very public proponent of gay marriage. Down ticket candidates, particularly ones who support controversial issues, rarely garner more of the vote than Presidential candidates of the same party, especially highly funded ones in extremely tight races. In eleven other rural Ohio counties, Ellen Connaly, the liberal judicial candidate mentioned above, ended up with more votes than Kerry. To believe a large portion of the population of rural Ohio voted for an African-American gay rights supporter, who even lost in more democratic precincts, and George W. Bush is unlikely at best, some would even say absurd. In Miami County, another of the 12 mentioned earlier, a voter turnout of 98.55% was recorded. Given the population, this would mean that all but ten registered voters went to the polls. However, in a post-election investigation the Columbus Free Press collected sworn affidavits from no less than 25 registered voters who claimed not to have voted in the election.12 It is also important to note that without the statistical anomalies in these twelve rural counties, Ohio would have been a blue state, putting Kerry in the White House6.

And lets not forget the ominous statement from the CEO and Chairman of Diebold in 2003 that he was ""committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.10 Conflict of interest maybe? The same goes for the Ohio Secretary of State.


In addition to these incidents there is also ample evidence of the GOP using unethical tactics in creating barriers to registration and lengthy lines for those more likely to vote Democratic6.


Problems with the voting systems in question were also observed in the 2004 election. At least twenty machines then had to be recalibrated mid-election in largely Democratic areas around Youngstown because almost one hundred voters reported entering ''Kerry'' on the touch screen and watching ''Bush'' become highlighted. Similar cases of "Kerry" votes showing up as "Bush" were reported in several other states as well.11 But given the fraudulent certification and possible manipulation of these machines, these results are unfortunately not all that surprising.

I have attempted to ask the FEC several questions about the machines in question, the FEC was rather dismissive with my inquiry and directed me to the EAC. They were much more cooperative, but they have yet to certify any voting systems. That power has been delegated to them, but not put into practice as of my phone conversation of September 22nd. There is federal legislation pending in regards to requests for paper ballots, voting "receipts" and/or some other type of physical record of votes, but it has not passed as of yet. Currently, that power resides with each individual state. I hope to receive a more complete response from the EAC in the near future, as I was assured one. However, I'm not holding my breath. If I do receive a response any useful information contained therein, along with a list of which states are currently willing to provide a physical record of votes will follow shortly thereafter.

So now there not only exists an opportunity, and motive for voter fraud, but also a precedent (pun intended). What's even worse is that it isn't even hidden very well. Yet the mainstream media and most of the public seem to be clueless. Why are Americans blind to this? Occam's razor points us to the modern version of what Toqueville called "American Exceptionalism." This über-Americanism causes many to simply be unable to fathom our leadership doing anything wrong because they have been inundated with the idea that the U.S. is qualitatively superior to other developed nations due to its constitutional emphasis on freedom, both personal and economic. The idea that criminals could hijack this "exceptional" nation and its government is tantamount to treason in the minds of many. Accepting that it can happen in other countries, and in fact does all the time, is not a problem, but believing that this country is susceptible to the plights faced by different people all over the globe simply does not compute. This ethnocentric tenet is merely a contortion of youthful ignorance and arrogance, that for some reason, many Americans refuse to grow out of. It is a tragic flaw in the American psyche, one that if not checked, could eventually have dire personal consequences for us all. Ultra-nationalism has scarcely worked out well for any culture.

1. Jim March, The Fraud Behind Diebold's Touch screen Certifications, August 3rd 2006 http://www.equalccw.com/wincefraudwalkthrough.pdf [Accessed October 11th 2006]

2. FEC Voting System Standards http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/vss.html [Accessed October 11th, 2006]

3. Richard Lee Legal Declaration, August 6th, 2006 http://www.equalccw.com/rrlee-wincedeclaration.pdf [Accessed October 11th, 2006]

4. Talbot Iredale, Re: PA Certification. April 15th 2002

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~ping/diebold/lists/support.w3archive/200204/msg00055.html [Accessed October 11th, 2006]

5. Harri Hursti, Diebold Tsx Security Study http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/36340.html?1154547546 [Accessed October 11th, 2006]

6. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Was the 2004 Election Stolen? RollingStone.com June 1st, 2006 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1 [Accessed October 11th, 2006]

7. .Bev Harris, Stoopidest Sleepover Security Ever: Black Box Voting blows through memory card seal http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/36510.html [Accessed October 11th, 2006]

8. Mark Brunswick and Pat Doyle, ''Voter Registration; 3 former workers: Firm paid pro-Bush bonuses; One said he was told his job was to bring back cards for GOP voters,'' Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), October 27, 2004.

9. Erica Solvig Cincinnati Enquirer, November 16, 2004 , ''No Changes in Final Warren Co. Vote Count; E-mails Released Monday Show Lockdown Pre-planned,'' http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041116/NEWS01/411160355/1056

10. .CBS: E-Voting: Is The Fix In? August 8th, 2004

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml[Accessed October 11th, 2006]

11. Voters Unite catalogues news reports from around the country that give examples of dysfunctional voting machines, among other election stories. http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=ALL&selectproblemtype=Machine+malfunction[Accessed October 11th, 2006]

12. ''Errors Plague Voting Process in Ohio, Pa." The Vindicator, November, 2004, Vindicator Staff Report http://www.vindy.com/basic/news/281829446390855.php[Accessed October 11th, 2006]


6:38 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The "Leo"-cons and the "Noble" Lie

The current chatter and accusations regarding Iran by the war cabal in Washington are prime examples of the Straussian interpretation of what Plato called the noble lie. The difference between Strauss and Plato's versions of this tactic is that Plato's noble lie was ficticious in details but at the core had a profound truth, whereas Strauss takes this to the nth degree and believes that society of deception is the odd justice of the wise. Justice, Strauss also thought, was only a product of the stronger labeling what was in their best interests as such.

Plato and Strauss were both proponents of the rule of the wise, however Plato came to the conclusion that this ultimately was not attainable. He then arrived at rule of law as the best alternative. The rule of law is imperative to the idea of American Democracy. Strauss did not follow Plato's logic to the rule of law conclusion, and instead postulated that a covert rule of the wise was not only the ideal but also attainable. This is the arrogant philosophy of the Bush Administration. The term Bush adminstration may be misleading since I somehow doubt Bush himself has read much Strauss, Neitzche, et. al. But people like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Murdoch, in all liklihood, have. Their belief that they are the "wise" is borne of nothing more than their belief that they hold what Neitzche called the will to power, certainly not that they are truly wise.

Another tenent they hold is that there are three types of men, the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar many. The wise, who are concerned with the ugly and untainted truth, use the Noble Lie to decieve the gentlemen who will faithfully execute the neccessary actions to achieve the goal of the lie. These persons genuinely believe the lie whereas the "wise" are not only aware of the lie, but are the ones who create it. The lie also serves the second purpose of placating the vulgar many, many of which do not share the desire to know the unadulterated truth. Personally I agree with Patrick Henry when he said: "It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth … For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." Unfortunately it seems Americans are not of that mind.

Irving Kristol, another member of the Strauss camp and the father of neo-conservatism said:"patriotism springs from love of the nation's past; nationalism arises out of hope for the nation's future, distinctive greatness…. Neoconservatives believe… that the goals of American foreign policy must go well beyond a narrow, too literal definition of 'national security'. It is the national interest of a world power, as this is defined by a sense of national destiny … not a myopic national security." Sounds a bit like manifest destiny, which in the rearview mirror of history, was a deplorable policy. The "American foreign policy" referred to by Kristol above is likewise deplorabe. Getting the masses to go along with this foreign policy is where this "noble" lie come into play. This is neccessary because what the so-called wise percieve to be the best interest may or may not actually be so. In addition the means to this supposedly best end may not be justifiable in the minds of the many.

One of the many fallacious assumptions of the Noble Lie is that the target audience would ideally be full of people who are at the best not very independently minded. This is flagrantly false, many individuals are capable of critical thought. When these types of individuals discover they have been decieved they may then distrust any other information from the same source in addition to likley having a negative emotional response to having been treated as if the source considered them idiots. There are a few mechanisms through which the Leo-cons attempt to circumvent these logical pitfalls.

The first of which is known as "poisoning the well," ( a form of argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy that will be explained later) which is basically leaking false information to the press or public that the independent thinkers are likely to initially support, only to be proven false. Example: Donald Rumsfeld's statement that a missile hit the Pentagon on September 11th.

The second method used, like the first, is not new. The Third Reich was well versed in the "Grand Lie." A concept that purports that if a lie is big enough many people will believe it simply because they themselves do not have the audacity to tell a lie that effects events on that grand of a scale and can't concieve of anyone else doing so.

What the Leo-cons believe, as evidenced by Brzenski in American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, is that regime change in several key regions of the mid-east is neccessary to secure the flow of energy resources to the west and away from China and Russia, to clip their political and economic wings before they become legitimate threats to American Supremacy. Brzenski, however, has recently heavily criticised the current administration and warns that war with Iran would be a huge mistake. The accusations against high ranking Iranian officials, particularly Ahamedinijad are suspicously similar to those laid out against Iraq and Saddam, and the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan before that. In any legitimate court of law here these arguments would be quickly dismissed as arguments ad hominem and post hoc (ergo prompter hoc), in addition to being purely circumstancial. This explains why Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc, have never been indicted in U.S. courts.

So today we are faced with yet another flimsy accusation against the Iranians with a newly discovered cache of weapons in Iraq, supposedly of Iranian origin. Also Vice President Cheney was attacked while at a meeting with with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the former UNOCAL (oil consortium with a contract to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, which conveinently also borders Iran) consultant. Iran is a largely shi'ia nation, many of the "insurgents" in Iraq are of the same Islamic doctrine. It would be strange if these followers of the same religious traditions were not in league with each other. This by no means would require the involvement of high level officials in the Iranian government, as the proponents of regime change in Iran would have you believe.

Covert weapons sales often occur without the knowledge of the highest ranking officials to retain plausible deniability and avoid larger wars. Take the Iran-Contra incident that took place under the Reagan Administration. Military and CIA operatives and assets sold U.S. Military equipment to Iran to raise money to fund a terrorist organization in Nicaragua known as the Contras because they were fighting the elected Communist officials. It was exposed when a U.S. military plane carrying supplies to the Contras was shot down by the Nicaraugan military and one of the occupants on board parachuted to safety. Notably he was disobeying orders by carrying a parachute on that flight. Reagan knew nothing of this, and stated it was untrue in a public address. The evidence then came to light and Reagan denounced it when he found out. Oliver North was mostly to blame and suffered most of the fallout, and even convicted. He now has a show on Fox (Faux) News.

The problem now is that the Defense Contractors, Oil Service Companies, and the Israeli lobby, wield enormous power in the highest echelons of our government, and they want a larger war. Let us not forget the words of Nazi Gestapo founder Hermann Wilhelm Göring at War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg:

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

So how can we spot these "Noble" Lies? Well, for starters words and phrases like "policy," "position," "we do not currently have information on," "the federal government requires that we state," and "some people say," the Faux News people are particularly fond of the latter. Now that Wolfowitz and company have already admitted that the real motivation for the Iraq war lies more in furthering American hegemony in the Mid-East and the securing of the oil and natural gas reserves in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea, the largest untapped reserves of those fuels in the world, why would their motivations for the coming war with Iran be any different?

Iran is currently capable of greatly reducing oil flow to the west, even completely stopping it for short periods. We are unwanted in the region and have done nothing there but promote regional instability. Iran is well aware that they cannot take the U.S. in an all out war, but they can hurt us where it really hurts the Leo-cons, in the pocket book by shutting off the petroleum we are so horribly addicted to in this country. The propoganda ministry for the current administration is gearing up to put the hard sell on the American public that Iran now poses an immenent threat to this nation.

Do not believe this "noble" lie. We are being treated as fools and the more we realize the more we become very, very pissed off. While the Platonic Noble Lie can serve an important purpose in a utilitarian sense, the Straussian notion of the Noble Lie has the intent of creating a culture of deception, which would be a regretable state of affairs.

The neo-conservatives in Washington are excellent at fear mongering. Fear is the Greatest Ally of Tyranny. Be careful what you believe

The War is Going Great

The successes of the Iraq war have been largely overlooked. What?! Success? Yes, the war has been quite successful, for Houston.

Since the Iraq invasion of 2003, the price of oil, and therefore the gas we all buy at the pump has been increasing and setting new record highs. With the price of crude rising, it would stand to reason that the fuel companies, as well as consumers, would feel this price spike. However, this is simply not true at all. While the average American has been paying more and more at the pump, the net profits of the oil companies have soared to unprecedented levels. Not just unprecedented levels for oil companies, but for any corporation. The third highest recorded quarterly profit for any U.S. based corporation was posted by Exxon-Mobil during the second quarter of 2006 at a staggering $10,360,000,000. The highest quarterly profit ever, $10.7 billion, was recorded by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2005. The 2nd & 4th highest quarterly profits are also Exxon, at 10.5 billion in the 3rd quarter of 2006, and 9.9 billion in the third quarter of 2005. Exxon also holds the top three spots for highest yearly profits ever, all after the start of the Iraq war, $39.5 billion in 2006, $36.1 billion in 2005, and $25.3 billion in 2004. Its not all Exxon though, the reserve value of the 5 largest oil companies has doubled during the war to a mind boggling $2.36 trillion. The profits of these companies since the beginning of the war has also blasted somewhere up into the stratosphere, its broken up like this:

Rank Gas Company Profit

1 Exxon $101,730,000,000
2 Shell $62,771,000,000
3 BP $70,349,000,000
4 Total S.A. $44,770,000,000
5 Chevron $42,999,000,000

In March of 2002 the average price of a gallon of unleaded fuel was about $1.20. Just days after the invasion, in March of 2003, the average price was already at $1.72, at the time that was less than one cent below the all time high. The trend of record setting prices, and profits, has continued ever since. While this puts a serious dent in the pocketbooks of most Americans, it is fattening the wallets of a few. Today gas is about 6 cents more expensive than it was a year ago, and about 60 cents higher than it was 6 months ago, most likely due to the election cycle we were experiencing at the time. The Washington-Houston cartel has now has an uncontested deathgrip on the paychecks of most Americans. The federal government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on the war in Iraq, which is the key factor in the ever-rising oil costs.

We were originally told that oil was not a factor in the decision to invade Iraq, as the State Department's Iraq study group stated "does not have oil on its list of issues." This has become more and more difficult to believe, if you choose to try, as more information surfaces.
Firstly there was W's statement to the Iraqi people upon the commencement of military action in their country, "I want to talk to the Iraqi people.... Do not destroy oil wells." That is pretty cut & dry.

Then there is Condi's secret meeting with the former Secretary-General of OPEC, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi, and offered Chalabi the job of Oil Minister for Iraq. To quote journalist Greg Palast: "It is well established that the President of the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne." But I digress... This was clearly an attempt to make Iraq a subjugated member of OPEC, thereby raising prices and revenue for the Houston crowd, through decreased production.

So, as it turns out, we weren't fraudulently led into a war to get Iraq's oil, but to limit Iraq's oil production. Before the war Iraq's oil production was around 4 million barrels a day, since the war, its held steady at around 2.1 million barrels per day. Everyone knows what happens to price when supply is cut by half.

Notably, Fadhil did not take the job as Oil Minister, however Ahmed Chalabi did. A convicted embezzler and neo-con "go-to guy," has quite the resume. From fleeing Jordan after a banking scandal in the 80s to organizing a failed kurdish resistance in the 90s and fleeing Iraq, then becoming a lobbyist for the Iraqi National Congress and recieving $97 mil, and allegedly misappropriating a significant amount thereof, and later being very involved in passing the fraudulent intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq, he was just the type of shady character the neo-cons were looking for. He has also been investigated in Iraq for fraud involving the exchange of Iraqi currency, grand theft of both national and private assets, and many other criminal charges, as well as being accused of passing sensitive U.S. information to Iran. Needless to say, he is not very well regarded in Iraq, or by Iraqis. It was only after all this that he was appointed as acting Oil Minister. When the permanent Oil Minister protested IMF austerity, Chalabi was reappointed. More on the IMF at a later date...

By appointing a Houston-friendly Oil Minister the Washington-Houston thugs were able to implement the State & Defense Department's plan titled "Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." You may be wondering what our gov't is doing writing up plans for another nation's oil, but don't worry, it wasn't written by government officials. The 323 page document was revealed (in 2005 by BBC NewsNight)to have been written by oil company executives and consultants in Houston well before "Mission Accomplished" was declared in grand fashion.

Shop Citgo.

Author's Note: These figures are from April of this year but the amounts have only increased.

Things you may not know about the Federal Reserve

In doing some reading recently about the Federal Reserve System, I happened upon some interesting information. One of the most notable nuggets was in this article posted on the federal reserve's website: Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman of the Board of Governors, apparently agrees with Friedman's assessment, saying in a 2002 speech: "I would like to say to Milton [Friedman] and Anna [J. Schwartz]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
Also, as for the misrepresentation that it is "Federal:" In Lewis v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
Now this is quite disturbing, because from these two relatively obscure bits of info, one can discern that a few men, by virtue of their ownership of private businesses hold the power to bring our economy to its knees. Not even lobbying firms can buy that kind of influence. As of late June of this year, the amount publicly owed to the Federal Reserve was about 790 billion.
Many notable figures in our nations history have criticised this highly questionable institution. Here are some interesting quotes:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." --Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.
"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." --President Woodrow Wilson
"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)
Congressman McFadden was one of the most outspoken critics of the Federal Reserve System. He even went as far as to draft a resolution bringing up conspiracy charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. He was murdered by poisoning while still in office on October 1st of 1936.
More recently Representative Ron Paul has also criticised this banking institution and seeks to abolish it if elected President

Hillary said what?!

A lot of people who are fairly progressive are in support of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. I fear many of her supporters are unaware of some of her more radical positions. In some respects she seems to embody some of the neoconservative foreign policies. Here is an interesting quote from an interview from the Jewish Press in October of 2006.
Sen. Clinton: First, I don't think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake.
If we were going to push for an election, we should have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win instead of signing off on an electoral system that advantaged Hamas.
So is all about democracy as long as we support who wins, right? This type of nation building is not what America needs to restore its credibility in the rest of the world.
And from the same interview:
In this new type of war, we have several big tasks ahead of us. First, we must do everything possible to prevent any of them – Iran, Al Qaeda and the like – from getting nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction. That's the ballgame.
This "by any means necessary" attitude is also harmful to diplomacy and peaceful solutions.
Then earlier this month she refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against "terrorists," such as Osama Bin Ladin and others in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but i imagine this group also includes Iran.
What a great way to discourage other countries from developing nukes, using them for intimidation when dealing with other countries. Sorry, only the U.S. can use this as leverage in diplomacy, no one else...
And as for the bogus "War on Terror" (War of Error, War of Terror, etc) she disagrees with John Edwards' contention that the war on terror is simply a political slogan and said in the June 2007 Democratic debate that she believes Americans are now "safer than we were."
I couldn't disagree more (as does the Senate Intelligence Report). Does anyone really think the War on Terror will be any more effective than the War on Drugs? If anything its easier to stop a boat full of cocaine from entering the country than to prevent a fanatic from blowing up himself and some others anywhere in the world. Read the docket from almost any court in the country and you'll most likely see at least one person, usually more, there for possession of some type of cocaine. Interesting side note, the war in afghanistan has resulted in the 95% cut in opium production under the Taliban to a whopping 1500% increase. In 2006 Afghanistan broke its own world record for opium production... but i digress.
Then there is also the refusal of Clinton Library archivists to provide documents regarding Hillary's time as first lady, more than 1,000 pages of which relate to healthcare. Has executive privilege been expanded to the First Lady? I suppose if she were to claim to not have been part of the executive branch, it would be more believable than Cheney's similar claim.
Suffice it to say I won't be supporting Hillary, and I think electing her would further our country's twisted amalgamation of McCarthyism, Eckbom Syndrome and Munchausen by proxy disorder in our foreign policy.

Fox vs. Wikipedia

The Wikipedia Foundation uses a piece of software called the Wikipedia Scanner to identify IP addresses and cross-reference them with data on which block of IP addresses are owned by what company, thus revealing some of the edits origins. Here are some recent interesting findings.
I recently found out that an IP address traced back to a Fox News computer was used to make a number of interesting changes to Wikipedia. For a full list click here. Here are a few interesting interesting tid-bits:
Changes Made to entry "Keith Olbermann"
Some conservatives feel that Olbermann's reporting carries a liberal bias.
To
Conservatives feel that Olbermann's reporting carries a liberal bias.
ADDED
This move was widely ciritcized by the the media and the blogosphere and Olbermann was attacked for making the death of news icon Peter Jennings about himself.
From
O'Reilly's show, "[[The O'Reilly Factor]]", airs on the Fox News Channel at the same time as Olbermann's show on MSNBC, garnering ratings six times higher than Olbermann's.
To
O'Reilly's show, "[[The O'Reilly Factor]]", airs on the Fox News Channel at the same time as Olbermann's show on MSNBC, garnering ratings ten times higher than Olbermann's.
REMOVED
Ultimately, Olbermann's dissatisfaction with Bristol contributed to his departure from ESPN in 1997. Even several years after his departure, many people still consider Olbermann to be one of the best anchors that SportsCenter ever had, and his pairing with Dan Patrick the best tandem ever.
In high school, Olbermann compiled an extensive list of first and third base coaches in baseball history. This documentation now sits in the Hall of Fame, and is considered the definitive compendium of first and third base coaches in baseball history.
… mocking O'Reilly's purported fetish for loofah sponges, as alleged in a sexual harrassment suit against O'Reilly.
According to Dash Riprock of americanpolitics.com, Olbermann "tells the truth, and he does it in a sharp, subtlety stated, but unmistakable style. It's sad to realize that it is truly such an oddity these days to see someone with those qualities on TV." [http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030401punditpap.html]
Changes To: "CARL CAMERON"
REMOVED:
Cameron has been criticized as being a partisan Republican in his reporting, often interjecting subjective labels on Democrats in order to attack them. In one segment, for example, Cameron attacked three separate Democrats in a time period of only fifteen seconds, deaming them variously, "fairly typical liberal partisan", "Angry liberal," and "extremist"[http://mediamatters.org/items/200501130003].
== Journalistic Fraud ==
Media watchdog groups have documented a number of occassions in which Carl Cameron has fabricated statements by Democratic politicians, seemingly to boost their Republican opponents. Among other quotes, Cameron once claimed that John Kerry labeled [[George W. Bush]] a "warmonger" who intended to create "perpetual war" around the world - no such instance of that criticism ever occurred. In another instance, Cameron fabricated an interview with Kerry in which Kerry referred to Bush as a "Cowboy" and spoke feminently about getting his "nails done", a more open attempt to humiliate and belittle Kerry, for which Fox News eventually apologized for.[http://mediamatters.org/items/200410040006][http://mediamatters.org/items/200409210009].
Changes made to "Brit Hume"
…with the criticism led by [[Media Matters for America]], an organization that critiques the press in search of conservative bias and bloopers.
To
…with the criticism led by [[Media Matters for America]], an liberal organization that critiques the press in search of conservative bias and bloopers.
From
Many groups and commentators, including [[Media Matters for America]], and liberal broadcasters [[Al Franken]], and [[Keith Olbermann]], have claimed that Hume distorted Roosevelt's views.
To
Many groups and commentators, including [[Media Matters for America]], and liberal broadcasters [[Al Franken]], and [[Keith Olbermann]], have claimed that Hume distorted Roosevelt's views in an attempt to ride Mr. Hume's coat tails in the ratings race as Mr. Hume hosts the highest rated political program on cable television.

Changes to "AL FRANKEN"
CHANGEDFrom
The lawsuit focused a great deal of media attention upon Franken's book and greatly enhanced its sales. Reflecting later on the lawsuit during an interview on the [[National Public Radio]] program "[[Fresh Air]]" on [[September 3]], [[2003]], Franken said that Fox's case against him was "literally laughed out of court" and that "wholly (holy) without merit" is a good characterization of Fox News itself.
To
The lawsuit focused a great deal of media attention upon Franken's book and greatly enhanced its sales. Reflecting later on the lawsuit during an interview on the liberal [[National Public Radio]] program "[[Fresh Air]]" on [[September 3]], [[2003]], Franken said that Fox's case against him was the best thing to happen to his book sales.

Here are a few more interesting findings from Wikipedia Scanner:
CIA has edited articles about the President of Iran.
The Vatican has removed content from articles about Gerry Adams, the leader the Irish Republican party, Sinn Fein.
Diebold, the company that delivers the electronic voting system for elections, has edited articles about the company, its controversial technology and its ties to the Republican Party.
Wal-Mart has wisely left consumer criticism in an article about the franchise giant, but made minor edits and additions about its employee policies.

Bad News

Korey Rowe, a producer of the popular 9-11 truth documentary "Loose Change," was arrested this Monday on a military warrant for desertion. Korey Rowe is also a veteran of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and left the military in June of 2005.
According to a Daily Star Article Rowe was arrested on a "military warrant" that was brought to the attention of deputies by the Oneonta Police Department, who received information from a source outside of that department.
The Associated Press reported last month that deserters are rarely court-martialed by the Army.
Although 3,301 soldiers deserted in the 2006 fiscal year, there were just 174 troops court-martialed.
The AP report said some deserters are returned to their units, while others are discharged in non-criminal proceedings.
Desertion rates have been rising since 2004, but the Army does little to seek out deserters and instead relies on a database that can be cross-checked by local law-enforcement agencies during encounters such as traffic stops, the report states.
The most questionable aspect of this arrest is the timing, given the theatrical release of "Loose Change: Final Cut," this coming September.
Fortunately, Mr. Rowe was released yesterday and released a brief youtube video recorded in the Boston airport before he left for Fort Campbell in KY, to clear his name.
Given that he left the military over 2 years ago and has been a relatively high-profile figure due to the success of the movie, which has resulted in many public appearances, this reeks of political persecution.
Speaking of political persecution, film maker Michael Moore has been issued a subpoena by the Bush administration regarding his visit to Cuba while filming his most recent film "Sicko." He was notified this Thursday while at NBC studios for an appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
And lastly, there is this threatening Executive Order issued on the 17th of this July: Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order: (ok, i'll save you the painful reading of legalese now, but if you're so inclined, click the linked text above for the official press release.)
Basically that anyone deemed to undermining or attempting to undermine the efforts for military enforced stability in iraq, can have all their assets seized. The definition of this extends to anyone making donations to groups that may be currently or later undermining or attempting to undermine the administrations efforts in iraq. Does this include those donating to anti-war presidential candidates campaigns? or the Democratic Congress? very disturbing...