So What?: Ranches, Mansions And Palatial Estates In Danger Under Newest Executive Order

Thanks to what appears to be a mistake in the wording -- a mere loophole, if you will -- the president's Executive Order of July 17, 2007, endangers the ranches, mansions and palatial estates of powerful "conservatives" including George W. Bush himself, and all those whom he calls his "base".

As detailed in a bright post by Sara at Orcinus, the order, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq", mentions

acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq

and it says that that since such acts pose an

unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security [...] of the United States

therefore

all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States [...] are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

And the "following persons" include

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

That's

any person determined ... to have committed ... an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of ... threatening the peace or stability of Iraq

The US invasion of Iraq, "justified" by the bogus claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction, has been an enormous act of violence, spawning countless other acts of violence that individually and collectively have clearly had the effect of threatening -- that is to say "eliminating" -- the peace or stability of Iraq.

This executive order therefore covers any president who ordered that invasion, any Senator or Representative who voted to allow it, any person who lied to "justify" it (including those who bought and sold the pro-war advertising campaign), and any person who took part in the invasion itself.

That includes the President, the vice president, the former secretary of state, the current secretary of state, the US military leadership, and many others, including Judith Miller and every other widely published supporter of the invasion, as well as -- of course -- the invaders themselves ...

or

... any person determined ... to have committed ... an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of ... undermining efforts to promote ... political reform in Iraq ...

The president himself has said many times that the United States is bringing democracy to Iraq; therefore all efforts which impede the Iraqi democratic process must be included under this clause. Since living under foreign occupation is incompatible with operating a democracy, this clause therefore includes all those who insist American troops must remain in Iraq. It makes no difference whether they say the troops must stay indefinitely or until certain deadlines pass or until certain benchmarks are met -- every day foreign troops remain in Iraq undermines political reform there.

Furthermore, there is nothing democratic or reformed about the leaders of the occupying force constantly pressuring the puppet lawmakers to pass a law that would turn seven eighths of the national treasure over to foreigners.

So this clause includes all the politicians who keep pushing for Iraq to pass the so-called "Oil Law", plus Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and more talking heads than anyone could possibly list, as well as bloodthirsty political "pundits" with names like Kagan and Kristol and fill in the blank with your own personal favorite: ____________ .

or

... any person determined ... to have materially assisted ... or provided financial ... support for ... any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order...

This clause catches everybody who ever contributed to either Bush campaign, as well as anybody who ever contributed to any of the campaigns of the Senators and Representatives who voted for the invasion or for continuing the occupation, and anyone who ever voted for any of the above, as well as anyone who ever bought anything online from the websites of any of the "personalities" we've listed or failed to list.

or

... any person determined ... to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of [...] any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

And this one grabs anyone who has ever done anything for any of the people we've already mentioned.

Some simple acts -- such as telling a lie -- may not appear to be acts of violence. But when they support an unjustified -- unjustifiable! -- war, how can such acts ever be considered non-violent?

So that's the question of the day, and I believe it has only one answer. And that means we're talking about a lot of people here, and they are in serious trouble! Finally! Fine! Uh!! Lee!!!

So here we go: Seize their possessions! Freeze their bank accounts! Cancel their credit cards and don't even let them write a check! Don't let them buy or sell a single stock, or bond, or barrel of oil, or bucket of blood. Hold on to all their other assets too, and see how well they like it!

They've jeopardized the national security of the United States of America -- the very thing many of them swore to uphold and defend -- and it's about time they faced some hardship because of what they have done.

This is not justice by any means, but it is a good first step, and I would congratulate the president for ordering it, except ...

... except ...

... except that you and I both know it will never be used to do what its words so clearly say.

It is in fact a grave danger to those who oppose the monstrosity that has taken over in Washington and wants Baghdad too. When they say "national security" they mean themselves, not the whole country. They have such massive egos, they imagine the country could never survive without them in their position -- elected or appointed office, or wealth or status or power or any combination of these. And therefore they believe that anything that threatens them personally is a threat to national security.

Maybe they don't all believe it. Maybe some of them only say it because they want you to believe it. But they say it all the time and it's sunk into the national consciousness even though most people have no idea what it really means, and all sorts of horrible things are done -- crimes excused, lives ruined, democracies overthrown, harmless nations invaded and occupied -- in its name.

And therefore the executive order probably comes with a top-secret eyes-only signing statement to the effect that the order will be interpreted to mean whatever the president decides it means and definitely not what the words say.

And in that respect...

So What?

Susan at Orcinus wants to know "Are We There Yet?" and the answer is "What do you mean, yet? We were there a long time ago and we kept on going."

There is nothing whatsoever to stop the Congress from passing a law saying, for example, that the president has three months to get all American troops home from Iraq.

And there's nothing to stop the president from signing it along with a statement saying the "three months" will be deemed to start twenty-five years from now and in the meantime anyone who opposes him or his foreign or domestic policy can go straight to prison for the rest of their lives with no trial, no hearing, no charge, no lawyer, no contact with their family or anyone else -- nothing but lemon chicken and a choice of deserts. And that's if he decides not to have them killed.

This state of affairs has existed for nearly six years.

Are We There Yet?

Oh yes, we most certainly are.

~~~

[ keep reading ]

Sara @ Orcinus: Are We There Yet?

Sean O'Neil: PCR's perspective on Bush's New Executive Order, and the start of dictatorship

Chris Floyd: Bringing It All Back Home: New Bush Order Could Criminalize Dissent

English Police Baffled At Plan To Give Them Additional Powers

According to a leaked letter from the British counter-terrorism minister, Tony McNulty, to the prime minister, Tony Blair, plans are afoot to grant new powers to British police -- powers which the police themselves have not sought.

As the Guardian phrased it,

The new powers, contained in a leaked letter from the counter-terrorism minister, Tony McNulty, to Tony Blair, would make it an offence punishable with a £5,000 fine for a person to withhold their identity or refuse to answer questions.
...

The Home Office confirmed that the power would be included in a counterterrorism bill to be announced in early June

but the plans were

greeted with a barrage of criticism yesterday, after it emerged that senior police officers had neither requested the change nor been consulted

and

the idea was also attacked by MPs, civil liberties and Muslim groups as unnecessary and harmful.

My opinion? Score one for the counter-terrorism minister. The storm will blow over and eventually they'll do it anyway. Even though one

of the country's most senior police officers told the Guardian [...] "We've got adequate powers ... if you are stopped and say 'sod off' to a police officer, you're going to get nicked."

To which this very cold blogger can only reply: "Bush and Blair have told us all to 'sod off' more than once, on matters of the utmost importance, they should long ago have been stopped, and it is now high time they were nicked!

But no, let's enhance the powers of the police instead. ;-(

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said the proposed new power was unnecessary and would lead to people being stopped randomly.

"I have no doubt that [...] it will be completely counter-productive. I can't help but think this is more political gesturing [...]"

All criminal offences, however minor, are now arrestable and if someone is suspected of withholding information about terrorism that can also lead to an arrest, she said. "This new power doesn't fill a gap because there is no gap."

Under terrorism laws, police have powers to carry out searches without reasonable suspicion, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Since September 11 2001, all of London has been declared by the home secretary as an area where such stops can be carried out, as are all railways and airports, and other sensitive urban areas which could be targeted.

In Memoriam: The Bill Of Rights

The first ten amendments to The Constitution of the United States are collectively called "The Bill of Rights". The rights enumerated in these amendments were supposed to be inviolable. Emphasis below is mine.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Less Than Two Weeks To Restore Your Inalienable Right To Kick The Bums Out!

From the department of Better Late than Never, your cold scribe presents extended excerpts from Paul Lehto's latest, an essay which amounts to an Election Integrity Manifesto. From BBV:

A bipartisan Congress will, in the next few days, attempt to violate your #1 Inalienable Right. [...] Although each person I've talked to understands they're being cheated by this, they just tend to think that other Americans won't listen, or think Americans too busy to preserve their own most basic rights.

Are Americans, in fact, too lazy or stupid to defend their own freedoms anymore?

That's one of the big questions, as it has been forever. But it's been the biggest elephant in the room for the past seven years.

Enough is enough! This is what it looks like when an election law attorney gets serious:

I don't particularly need this fight: I've been in the hospital several times in the last year for as long as a week, and though medical bills and devotion to this cause have emptied the savings, and although fatigue follows me daily, and with two young children to worry about, I am nevertheless convinced of the need to give this my all.

After having sought the counsel of some fellow citizens and lovers of democracy, and short of funds and energy for renewing my license anyway, I've let my attorney license expire as a form of resignation as a lawyer, I will not have clients any more – other than American Democracy. I feel that what I've learned about elections I can not ration and sell at $200 an hour, when as many as possible need to know some things, and soon.

In reaching this decision, I realized that the principles of our representative democracy are actually more important than life itself.

Otherwise, if this were not the case, how would you convince a man or woman to sacrifice their life for this principle of democratic self-government? By what other persuasion would we send our young to the front lines of war other than with some version of Patrick Henry's famous patriotic challenge:

"Give me Liberty, or Give Me Death?"

Americans believe that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

That may indeed be true. But most of us have not been very vigilant!

We the People have been eliminated from a meaningful role in elections, because nobody counts and nobody can watch the counting of the vote on the new electronic machines. After well over a century of successfully hand counting paper ballots under the supervision of the public and the parties, and although the number of workers it takes per thousand hand counted ballots has essentially not changed, we've grown fond of the wonders of computer and grown tired of Election Night labors for democracy. Various types of computers have come in to take up the slack, both optical scanners using paper ballots originally, and touch screen computers, counting well over 80% of our ballots in complete invisibility and secrecy.

There's a lot more on this tack but it boils down to this:

We the People are no longer able to keep our eyes on, or supervise, our own elections. We've been eliminated from elections by "modernization." The "modern" computers are amoral slaves that do whatever they are told to do without regard to law or democratic ethics. Their electronic hard drives operate invisibly. They might offer some convenience, but they also make us stand in line to wait for machines, and richer counties have shorter lines than poorer counties. As might be expected given the nature of computers, numerous studies establish that one person with access to one results disk for about one minute can place a virus that can alter an entire county's election results, or alter an entire state's election results. Though elections have always been under pressure because of their stakes, this increases enormously the amount of cheating one person can do, how quickly they can do it, and how easily they can erase the evidence of what they did.

So that means ...

With computerized voting, your inalienable right to kick the bums out, or your inalienable right to alter or abolish your government through elections, doesn't exist. It is not secured for you by your government. They are not guaranteeing this right for you. In fact any corrupt election insider could, for money, partisanship, pressure, threat or in the belief of doing a great justice to the whole Nation, alter the election results undetectably, erasing the steps along the way. As long as the total number of votes match up roughly, and one doesn't cheat more than say 20 percentage points, a whole industry of political pundits will chalk up the surprise victory to the last minute attack ad, or great get out the vote campaign, or a problem with the "loser's" platform, the weather, or any of dozens of other colorable excuses.

In short, with computerized voting by optical scanner or touch screen, your vote is simply whatever the invisible computer instructions say it is, computers can be programmed many months in advance, and instructing the computer to wait til election night poll closing before changing votes will defeat every test that ever happens, which are all with small amounts of votes anyway. With a computer, it is really irrelevant what it does in a testing period the day before or the day after, it matters only what the computers in the real election (and we all know which ones they are) are actually instructed to do, on Election Day and election conditions.

This means that you do still have the right to kick out an honest politician, you just don't have the right to kick out a crooked politician. But of course, that's precisely when the inalienable right to kick the bums out is most needed: with a no good cheating bum.

How timely!

The only kind of voting system that is compatible with your inalienable rights and mine is one the public can watch like a hawk, and one that the public controls, and that it can observe. Given it is the duty of government to secure and guarantee our rights, specifically including the right to kick them out, elections have no choice but to be publicly controlled.

Those are the principles. Now for the politics that get a little debatable with some people. Essentially in the only system that provides for public control and observable elections is known as precinct counted hand counted paper ballots. Simply put, this system is running unopposed in the democracy race. We do not have a choice of much completely different systems. The ability to peacefully preserve freedom and democracy through elections is far too valuable for any objection to it to have weight.
...

But the Congress won't listen. Neither party listens to the needs of democracy, so they must hear from YOU the citizens. On May 6, 2007 the House Administration Committee reported out a modified bill called HR 811, also known as the Holt bill. In that bill's markup in committee, it got better and it got worse in various particulars, if you follow the debate. One way in which it got much worse is that instead of source code for the computer that would be given away for any citizen's inspection, they committee put in language that made the source code a government-recognized trade secret, available only to "qualified" experts, and then only if a strict nondisclosure agreement is signed that incorporates trade secrecy laws of the states, which almost always contain harsh punitive damages and attorneys fees clauses for violating the secrecy.

This language is particularly ominous. I know of no time before that an American legislative body has ever tried to pass law to reinforce secret vote counting.

Wow! And it gets even worse!

On the same infamous day of May 6, 2007, the House Administration committee did more than just insert language that would give a specific statutory "anchor" or claimed basis in law for secret vote counting. On that day they also dismissed, without allowing discovery via the Congress or hearing any evidence in the Congress, 4 Congressional election contests.

Three were in Florida and one in Louisiana. A remaining fifth contest in Florida's 13thCongressional District was not dismissed but already has a state court ruling holding that "trade secrecy" overcame the need to investigate the truth in that Congressional election. In another, Florida's 24th, candidate Clint Curtis collected many hundreds of affidavits showing his official results were underreported by 12% to 24%. The House Administration Committee ignored and refused to hear this evidence, dismissing this and 3 other contests without any discovery of facts or any evidentiary consideration.

There's more, and Lehto touches on some of it, but he's aiming at more than a mere recap of the details:

Publicly controlled elections must be restored immediately, based on considerations of the values of democracy. If we only consider non-democratic values like convenience, we'll end up with a non-democratic system. Harry Truman laid it out straight: If you want just efficiency, you'll get a dictatorship. The most likely route to a loss of freedom comes when realizing that a successful election criminal gets to be an election official or set election policy. What if a bank robber got to be bank president and set bank vault policy? Thus, when protective of liberty and looking for suspect election criminals, look in office.
...

Our elimination from our proper role controlling elections? This is a crime against democracy. We need to remember who we are as Americans, and act soon to tell the House and the Senate in DC and in our state houses, that we will not stand for secret vote counting, that they most definitely will not pass laws purporting to authorize or legalize that even indirectly, that it is a shame of immense proportions for them to vote for secret counting of votes in their own re-election races, by simply amending the Help America Vote Act with HR 811 without abolishing secret vote counting. That this huge conflict of interest, voting on their own re-elections, ought to sensitize Congress to a great need to act against its own perceived interests, and that politicians who love representative democracy and their own constituents surely ought to be competing with each other to see who can restore more power to the people in elections than the other guy.

Because if they don't, if they keep the secret counting easily manipulated by insiders and their cavalier attitudes toward election contests, our #1 inalienable right to kick crooked bums out will remain violated and denied by our own government.
...

So if you feel as I feel, if you wish as I wish, that America will never become a banana republic with an out of control government, then talk to your fellow rulers, your fellow citizens, spread the word far and wide, and make the US House, the US Senate, and your state legislatures hear Freedom's bell, so they know what it sounds like. We are not the Slaves, we are in charge. We are watching. We demand control of our elections. We will not give up. Democracy and Freedom both depend on that.

Why Democrats And Democratic Interest Groups Won't Fight E-Vote Machines

From Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, here is the best answer I have seen to a question raised most recently by Big Dan in a comment.

(Warning: You might really hate this story.) This story represents months of original research by Black Box Voting. We went into this looking for the defense industry contractors we'd heard had lobbied for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). That legislation has been blamed for the touch-screens (DREs) that showed up all over America. Well, that's not what we found. The real story on who was behind HAVA may come as a surprise to you. It was to us.

Permission to reprint and distribute granted, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org

THE ROAD TO BOONDOGGLE IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS: HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT (HAVA) LOBBYIST LIST

Question: What happens if you lobby a lawmaker for $4 billion in expenditures for touch-screen voting machines and go back to that same lawmaker two years later asking to dump DREs?

Answer: You lose credibility. It might be hard to lobby for other things. It's politically embarrassing. And your members, or funders, might have a few questions to ask about the prudence of your lobbying expenditures.

BUT HOW COULD ANYONE HAVE KNOWN?

The road to voting computers was paved with good intentions. No one knew that some of the programmers for voting computers would turn out to be convicted embezzlers.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/14318.html

No one realized that the main sponsor of the HAVA bill -- Rep. Bob Ney -- would end up going to jail on corruption charges.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/46466.html

Few realized that the federal testing labs, Ciber and Wyle, weren't doing their jobs and their overseers -- NASED and now the EAC -- failed to check their work.
Wyle failures (Bowen Hearing): http://www.blackboxvoting.org/itahearing.pdf
Ciber failures: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/46428.html

HAVA bought a lemon.

WHO BIT INTO IT?

Progressive public interest groups. Labor unions. Civil rights groups.

While many election reform activists are under the impression that touch-screen (DRE) voting machines were some sort of Republican plot to take over America, the truth is that lobbying for the DRE-seeking "Help America Vote Act" came primarily from the foundation of the Democratic Party itself.

Activists throughout America have expressed surprise at the Democratic Party's unwillingness to pull DREs off the shelf. One reason is simply this: To do so would damage the credibility of those who lobbied for HAVA. And those who lobbied for HAVA just happen to be the biggest funders and activist workhorses for the Democratic Party itself.

WHO INVESTED THEIR CREDIBILITY (AND MEMBERSHIP FUNDS) TO LOBBY FOR HAVA?

1. Public interest groups - mostly progressive
2. Big labor
3. Minority rights groups
4. Disability rights groups
5. Industry

Of these, the first four tend to favor Democrats but the fifth group -- industry, the group charged with writing the computer code that counts America's votes -- is made of vendors that are more often close to the Republican Party.

Democrats lobbied HAVA in but to a large extent, Republican-affiliated vendors executed the mechanics of the plan. Some would call this comical; others, tragic.

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP HAVA LOBBYISTS

1. People for the American Way
2. Common Cause
3. American Civil Liberties Union
4. League of Women Voters
5. American Jewish Committee
6. Hadassah
7. American Association for Retired Persons
8. Public Citizen
9. American Network of Community Options and Resources
10. Constitution Project (Georgetown University)
11. Open Society Policy Center (Soros)

LABOR UNION HAVA LOBBYISTS

1. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
2. Laborers International Union of North America
3. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
4. United Auto Workers
5. American Federation of Teachers
6. AFL-CIO
7. UNITE (Industrial & Textile employees)

Of the seven HAVA-lobbying groups above, five are among the Top-20 largest donors of all time to any political party. All five donate almost exclusively to the Democratic Party and its candidates. None of the top 20 Republican donors lobbied for HAVA.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the labor unions that lobbied for HAVA have given nearly $150 million to support Democrats since 1989, and six were in the Top-20 Democratic PAC funders for 2006-06.

MINORITY RIGHTS HAVA LOBBYISTS

1. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
2. National Council of La Raza
3. Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF)

DISABILITY RIGHTS HAVA LOBBYISTS

1. American Foundation for the Blind
2. The ARC of the United States
3. National Disability Rights Network
4. Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
5. United Cerebral Palsy Association

Black Box Voting has been unable to locate the lobbying disclosure forms for the American Association of Persons with Disabilities (AAPD) featuring the vocal Jim Dickson, nor did we find any disclosure forms for the National Federation for the Blind (NFB), the group that took $1 million from Diebold. Misfiled? Misnamed? Overlooked? Omitted?

Link for NFB $1 million from Diebold: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/36492.html

COUNTY GOVERNMENT HAVA LOBBYING

1. Riverside County, Calif.
2. San Diego County, Calif.
3. Ventura County, Calif.
4. Miami-Dade County, FL

INDUSTRY & BUSINESS HAVA LOBBYISTS

1. Accenture
2. VoteHere
3. Election Systems & Software
4. AccuPoll
5. Danaher
6. Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs
7. US Business & Industry Council
8. Assocation of Technology Act Projects

Not found on lobbying forms pushing HAVA: The SAIC, the ITAA, and Diebold.

Diebold Election Systems Inc does not show up on the 2001-02 HAVA lobbying forms, but did lobby for elections issues in 2004 and 2005.

Also notably missing are the firms referenced by R. Doug Lewis of "The Election Center" in an August 2003 meeting. In this tape recorded meeting, he said that HAVA was put into place by an election systems task force which included Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, EDS, and Accenture.

Of these, only Accenture shows up the lobbying forms, and there is no entity called Election anything, except for Election System & Software and another company, election.com, which lobbied for Internet voting. (See Chapter 8 of Black Box Voting for more on the Saudi-owned election.com, which was later taken over by Accenture - http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf - See Chapter 16 for more information on the tape recorded meeting: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-16.pdf)

What about Choicepoint? Choicepoint says it didn't lobby for HAVA. Choicepoint says it hasn't had any involvement in elections.

The lobbying forms don't show lobbying for voting machines, but a lobbying firm called Fleishman-Hillard Government Relations filed a registration form in 2002 indicating they planned to lobby for "Election Reform" on behalf of Choicepoint. Muddying things up, no 2002 lobbying form appeared showing that they did. In 2001, however, a lobbying form clearly puts Choicepoint in the middle of HAVA lobbying, showing that Choicepoint was involving itself in lobbying for the voter registration component of HAVA.

Choicepoint has repeatedly stated that they have "no involvement whatsoever" in elections, and in rebuttal to a controversial article that appeared for a short while on OpEd News, Choicepoint came on to deny that they lobbied for HAVA. More on Choicepoint here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html

Choicepoint, a controversial database broker, clearly cannot state that it has "no involvement in elections."

Choicepoint stakeholder Donna Curling, wife of Choicepoint chief Doug Curling, has continued to fund election reform lobbying by providing funding for some of the activists working on the Holt Bill.

THEY THOUGHT DRE VOTING MACHINES WOULD HELP THEM BUILD THE DEMOCRATIC BASE

Those who lobbied for HAVA were convinced that the DRE machines would solve problems, helping more people vote.

1. Many of the HAVA reformers believed that with DREs, people with less education would be more likely to fill out the whole ballot. In fact, they reasoned, the DRE machines would be easier to use for educationally disadvantaged populations, minorities, non-English-speaking voters, and the disabled.

Few studies back these conclusions up, and those that do have generally not been replicated, or were not peer reviewed, and sometimes show methodology that is as flawed as the lemons HAVA bought. The occasional studies that have been done -- even those prepared by DRE advocates -- sometimes end up with troubling caveats. A Georgia study purported to show that "most people like voting on the DREs" (but rarely mentions the small print: The same study showed that the African-Americans surveyed distrusted the touch-screens).

2. The citizens' right to oversee local elections -- and especially the citizens' right to even get access to information -- has been all but eliminated through the implementation of HAVA. The original civil rights concept was virtuous.

Federal Government is the entity that enacted civil rights, HAVA reformers reasoned, so therefore let's ask the federal government to fix our elections process.

Be careful what you ask for. It just might get "fixed."

REAL SOLUTIONS

If federal government is going to correct anything, it should start with enacting tougher standards to give citizens Freedom of Access to Elections Information -- mandating that the system actually PRODUCE the information needed for citizens to make sure the right candidate was place in office, in a TIMELY manner, that is COST EFFECTIVE and USABLE, prohibiting removal of the information through proprietary claims.

And above all, local CITIZEN oversight must be protected. In almost every case, discoveries of problems with elections and the computers that count them have been discovered by ordinary citizens, not by government oversight, auditors, consultants, certifiers, or experts.

And if we are going to rid ourselves of the DREs, we need to get past the -- er -- little "problem" of the threat to credibility if former HAVA lobbyists take the courageous step of changing course.

They couldn't have known. Perhaps a set of tough investigative hearings can provide the evidence to brace those backbones for the change in direction. Look to Calif. Secretary of State Debra Bowen's well-prepped, no-nonsense hearings on the certification process for examples, and start by issuing subpoenas to Diebold's master programmer, Talbot Iredale, and Ciber's Shawn Southworth (who refused to show up for Bowen's hearing).

This thing can be done. It doesn't need a bandaid, it needs a disinfectant.

SEE FOR YOURSELF HOW HAVA CAME TO BE:

Photocopies of the lobbying forms are in the process of being uploaded to the Black Box Voting Document Archive. You will find lobbying forms for all of the groups listed above as they are uploaded here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/46539.html

# # # # #

Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over the instruments of government we have created.

* * * * *

Black Box Voting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit elections watchdog group supported by citizen donations. The work of Black Box Voting has been featured on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News Network, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and was featured in the recent HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy."

To support Black Box Voting, click here to donate, or send to:
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98057
Contact information and press kit: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/presskit.html

* * * * *

Dear Mike: Please Say The Word!

Here's an Open Letter to Mike Gravel from John Doraemi of Crimes Against The State and OpEd News. As is my custom, I have touched up the spelling and punctuation, and added some emphasis and space:

Dear Senator Gravel,

Do you want to win?

You are one word away from turning US politics on its head. There is one powerful, earth-shaking word that can stop this madness in its tracks and press "reset" on the entire imperial project.

That word is "Treason."

In particular, the treason that transpired on September 11th 2001. There is no other issue, and no other combination of words that will put you in the White House except for this issue, and this word: Treason.

Treason is knowingly allowing the attacks on our nation and not doing anything whatsoever to stop them. That happened. Everyone knows it, yet no one puts it on national television.

Treason is being told "America is under attack," yet sitting there, stalling for time, and reading a children's book.

Treason is when the Vice President of the United States illegally assumes control of our armed forces and orders a stand down of force protection at the Pentagon, as witnessed in Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony under oath to the 9/11 Commission.

Treason is receiving a Daily Briefing called "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and then failing to respond to this threat in any meaningful manner.

Treason is being moved from your high rise hotel in Genoa Italy because of a warning of suicide hijackings of commercial jets, and then lying to the country repeatedly that this threat was never conceived of before.

Treason is violating one's oath of office to defend the Constitution, and then burning the Bill of Rights, destroying the foundation of our freedoms and of our nation.

Treason is participating in the cover-up and illegally destroying crime scene evidence so that we cannot forensically solve the greatest crime in American history.

Treason is obvious to many millions around the world, including the intelligence services of other nations who warned the U.S. during the summer of 2001 that this attack was imminent and expected.

Senator Gravel, America is hanging by a thread. The media have been complicit in obeying the government and in covering up the glaring Treason of September 11th. You are in a unique position to open up this issue to scrutiny.

Other candidates will not tread there. They lack the guts, or the brains, or the morality to confront the high treason that has allowed and fostered international terrorism. U.S. leaders have deliberately allowed known terrorists to escape justice and to act against civilians. This is a provable fact.

You could be the man that saved America from fascism and totalitarian rule. But it's all or nothing.

Say the word.

Resources:

Testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta [ WinWMV | REAL.RM | QT.MOV]

The 9/11 Commission Report, One Year Later. Did the Commission Get it Right? Congressional Hearings of Representative Cynthia McKinney [PDF]

"Ties With Terror: The Continuity of Western-Al-Qaeda Relations in the Post-Cold War Period", Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed [HTML]

The Facts of September 11th 2001 [HTML]

Video of Senator Gravel at the first Democratic Party Debate [YouTube]

How about that? What if Mike Gravel said "treason" on national television?

What if Mike Gravel stood up there with all all the cardboard cutouts pre-programmed with AIPAC talking points, oops, that should have said RNC talking points, um, excuse me, I mean DLC talking points ... sorry about that, but what if, in the middle of the cacophony of meaningless lies and despicable threats, Mike Gravel cut right to the heart of the most burning and neglected issue of our time?

What if Mike Gravel said what all thinking Americans and everybody else in the whole world already knows?

What if Mike Gravel stood up and said: "This is our biggest problem: Bush committed treason! Cheney committed treason, too! And nobody will even talk about it."

Can you imagine? It sounds like a great idea to me!

If you like the idea as much as I do, why not contact the folks at Mike Gravel's campaign -- and send them this link? Or this one? Or this one?

Aside from injecting another badly-needed dose of truth into the national discourse, it could solve a lot of other problems too.

How To Win The War On Terror

Truth-Teller Lou Dobbs Under Attack For Alleged Hate Speech

Kurt Nimmo reports:

“A Jewish group is calling for the firing of an outspoken CNN anchor, Lou Dobbs, after he accused advocates for illegal immigrants of using propaganda techniques employed by Nazi Germany,” reports the New York Sun. “Mr. Dobbs has crossed the line between responsible television commentary and hate-speech propaganda of his own. Keeping him on the air is essentially sanctioning by CNN -- which is why we’re asking CNN to remove Dobbs from his very public platform,” complained Gideon Aronoff. “Comparisons to Nazis -- especially in this day and age -- are abhorrent.”

Au contraire, Mr. Aronoff! Comparisons to Nazis -- especially in this day and age -- are particularly relevant. But apparently irony rules the day, and relevance is fast becoming "quaint".

For instance, is it not supremely ironic that a representative of a Jewish group -- who presumably would want us to remember always what the Nazis did and how they did it -- would now tell us that mere "comparisons" to Nazis are "abhorrent"? It goes to show just how far we've fallen through the looking glass, especially when, as Nimmo points out,

it is perfectly legitimate to compare Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler and the Iranian government to a gaggle of Nazis. Dobbs made the mistake of saying something hurtful—never mind the truth of his statement—against a government protected minority group.

And that's not to mention the obvious and entirely overlooked fact that the propaganda techniques employed by Nazi Germany are well-known, easily detected and more or less ubiquitous in the bizarre culture of fiction and hatred which the criminals who've taken over our country call "the post-9/11 world".

It is no mistake Mr. Aronoff used the words “hate-speech propaganda” in his denunciation. Indeed, in the weeks ahead, as the Senate passes the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act,” also called the “Gay Hate Bill,” we can expect additional targets to come under attack for the egregious crime of speaking their minds. Prosecuting preachers and Christians opposed to homosexuality is but the useful veneer of this draconian legislation, as the government, of course, does not give a whit about the supposed rights of homosexuals -- or, in fact, the rights anybody but a small number of bankers and transnational corporations.

Apparently nothing for our pseudo-Christian leaders is Eternal and Everlasting but their newfangled Unholy Trinity of Fiction, Hatred, and Irony.

They've got the churches -- including the church my family attends -- fighting for what they call "freedom of religion", which is supposedly under attack. But the only alleged infringements that they ever complain about seem to revolve around the church's "right" to discriminate against homosexuals. No other aspect of religious freedom seems to be an issue for these people, who would never dream of allowing their church to be "used" for "political" purposes (such as, perhaps, a protest against a whole series of unprovoked amd unjustified wars) despite the undeniable fact that the instructions "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" feature much more prominently in the Bible than anything it has to say about homosexuality.

And so the truth-twisters who now run our country have managed to turn the opponents of hatred -- as well as its practitioners -- against the Bill of Rights. How long can a former republic divided against itself remain standing?

Meanwhile, the irony continues unabated, as Nimmo points out.

“In calling for Dobbs to be kicked off the air for simply using an analogy about Nazi Germany, the Jewish group are behaving like Nazis themselves, attempting to chill free speech and create a climate where nobody is allowed to say anything in case it offends someone,” notes Prison Planet. “Since Don Imus made an ignorant off-hand comment about a black female basketball team, enemies of free speech everywhere have crawled out of the woodwork in an attempt to exploit the controversy and silence anyone who dares challenge political correctness or simply makes a statement that some would consider controversial.”

In the case of Dobbs, however, it is not simply controversy, as the anchor strikes at the heart of the concerted effort to reduce the American worker to carefully engineered pauperism and usher in a New Serfdom through open borders and ongoing currency devaluation.

Not to mention his longstanding efforts on behalf of electoral-system sanity, as chronicled in detail here.

It is really quite remarkable Lou Dobbs was allowed to righteously complain for so long on CNN’s dime about open borders and illegal immigration.

It's also remarkable that he was allowed to complain for so long about the bogus "voting" machines, in my opinion. But perhaps the powers-that-be judged the American public too apathetic to do anything, even if the truth about our so-called "electoral" system were generally known. They may have been right about that.

Nonetheless, as Nimmo remarks, we can

expect prosecutions and witch hunts to commence forthwith, especially against truth tellers.

Especially against truth tellers! There's a good one; Kurt Nimmo cracks me up!!

Isn't suppression of truth tellers the whole point of the exercise? Who else would they mount witch hunts against?

Deja Vu All Over Again: LA Cops Get Violent Against Peaceful Protest

Yesterday in Los Angeles, the May Day rally for immigration reform had been peaceful all day -- a blatant abuse of what the Constitution calls Freedom of Assembly and one which could not be allowed to continue.

And so, with their usual finesse and subtlety, the LAPD broke it up -- with a violent attack!

There's good video from the local FOX affiliate here:
LAPD Uses Force to Disperse Immigration Marchers

Thousands of people marched in Los Angeles Tuesday calling for immigration reform. The marches were peaceful until the evening, when the LAPD used force to disperse the crowd.

And here:
Raw Video: Police Move in on May Day Crowd

raw video from the scene as Los Angeles police officers move in on May Day marchers

And you might find this a bit predictable:
Bratton Responds to LAPD's Use of Force

LAPD Chief Bill Bratton stated that there will be an investigation into the LAPD's use of force during the immigration marches on Tuesday.

But there's more here:
Immigration March Protestors Standoff with Los Angeles Police,

An estimated 200,000 worker's rights marchers flooded the streets of downtown Los Angeles today. The march was peaceful for most of the day despite the constant undertow of tension present at this protest that was not present last year. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) was more on its guard and protesters were more circumspect than last year. Tensions came to a head at McArthur Park at late evening where riot police fired rubber bullets and tear gas into an estimated 5,000 people and used batons on demonstrators.

"They just starting firing those rubber bullets and tear gas at the people. It was crazy," said A.G. a protester making his way out of McArthur Park at about 6:30 pm.

Police cleared the park declaring it an illegal assembly but came at loggerheads just outside the park with a small group of protesters who squared off with LAPD at the corner of 6th and Alvarado. Demonstrators taunted police with cuss-word names and wiggle-butt dances then threw a glass bottle, the reason for the first crackdown from the police inside the park. Protestors were on the north side of 6th street and the LAPD was on the south side while a police chopper flew low overhead shining its spotlight on the crowd.

After the glass bottle flew, the police line switched from a baton carrying front to a rubber bullet gun and tear gas front. Demonstrators taunted and carried on with the day's chant "Si, se puede!" (we can do it).

After the LAPD collapsed their line and gathered up traffic signs, the officers got in their vehicles and left. The demonstrators then charged across the street shouting "We won! We won!"

There's more on-the-ground reporting at this link, and updates will no doubt be available here, where the story is BREAKING!

~~~

How confusing! What does this all mean?

Some people will tell you it's too soon to say for sure. Hogwash. What this means was clear a long time before it happened. It's the result of a massive and systematic failure -- a failure of education above all.

That's some frightening, graphic, disturbing video. Defenseless people, assembling peacefully in the streets of a major American city and being oh-so-casual about it. Watch it again if you can stand to see them just walking along in their light blouses and short-sleeved shirts -- as if they were in a civilized country!

What has happened here? Why don't they know???

Senators Vow To Restore Habeas Corpus

Here's a dash of good news from Susan Cornwell of Reuters:

Influential U.S. senators vowed on Thursday to restore to foreign terrorism suspects the right to challenge their imprisonment, saying Congress made an historic blunder by stripping them of that right last year.

Hundreds of suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members held at a U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be affected.

All the other people held in U.S. military prisons could be affected, too.

The United States has drawn international criticism over its continued detention of terrorism suspects in Guantanamo, with human rights groups demanding the prison be closed and detainees charged with crimes or released.

It's the least one can ask of a civilized country, is it not? Or do we no longer even aspire to that status?

Last year's Congress, with a Republican majority, passed a law setting specific rules for U.S. military tribunals. It included a ban on non-citizens labeled "enemy combatants" from using "habeas corpus" petitions to challenge the legality of their detention in court, asserting that military panels at Guantanamo were a substitute for court review.

They are not, of course. Not even close.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy warned that the rights of some 12 million legal aliens in the United States -- as well as any foreigners visiting the country -- had also been infringed by the new law.

Regular readers of this page may remember that the issue of illegal detention of legal aliens became a personal one last fall, when the cousin of a friend was detained without cause, without charge, and -- for far too long -- without even a hearing.

It's no stretch to imagine that the same thing could happen to any of twelve million legal residents -- indeed it has happened to many of them. Fortunately, my friend's cousin was released after "only" three weeks. But many others who were been detained for the same nonexistent reasons are still in prison. So a restoration of habeas corpus would help them as well.

It would also help the approximately 300 million American citizens whose rights have also been infringed -- by the new law combined with the president's having claimed the right to strip the citizenship (and thus the habeas corpus rights) of anyone he (or any subordinate he might deputize) may deem an "enemy combatant".

"This new law means that any of these people can be detained forever ... without any ability to challenge their detention in federal court, or anywhere else, simply on the government's say-so that they are awaiting determination as to whether they are enemy combatants," the Vermont Democrat said.

"This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American," Leahy said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would share jurisdiction on changing the law.

You can't argue about any of this unless you have a license to lie. But there are an awful lot of licensed liars to be found, especially at the five-cornered building.

A Defense Department lawyer and some committee Republicans said the law should be allowed to work and be examined by U.S. courts before Congress acts again.

It's the same old song with a different word in it. Give the war a chance! Give the surge a chance! Give the gulag a chance! Give us just one more chance to lie to you!

Are you ready for another one? Here it comes:

"Detention of enemy combatants in wartime is not criminal punishment and therefore does not require that the individual be charged or tried in a court of law," said Daniel Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel at the Pentagon.

Unfortunately for Mr. Dell'Orto, there's much more to the story. This is not exclusively about the detention of America's enemies. This is also about the detention of people who are anything but enemy combatants. Some of them are guilty of nothing but trying to escape from the bombing of their former homelands, and were sold into captivity. But the Pentagon-licensed lawyers don't want you to know about that. Or about anything else that's really going on in the world. And neither does the administration. Fortunately, they don't yet have full control over everything.

Leahy, along with Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, has introduced legislation to restore habeas corpus right to detainees.

With decades of duplicity to atone for, Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter seems to have taken a step in the right direction. On the other hand, this could simply be more duplicity on his part. After all, he is a past master.

Let us recall that during the debate on the law he now says he wants to change,

Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the President to detain people indefinitely. He also said the bill violates core Constitutional protections. Then he voted for it.

Personally, I don't trust Arlen Specter any farther than I can throw him -- and I never will. But one can always hope. And if Pat Leahy still has hope, how can any of the rest of us give up?

The Reuters report continues:

With the help of Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, "I hope we can fix this serious and corrosive problem by this summer," Leahy said.

Levin, a Michigan Democrat, agreed "we have an obligation to act now to establish a process that we can defend."

It's clear that the current setup is indefensible. And the challenge to it is way overdue.

So here's a big "HOORAY" for Senators Leahy and Levin (and a small one for Arlen Specter), and best of luck to them on this.

The gulag is one of the centerpieces of the tyranny this administration is trying to establish -- perhaps the single most important and most intimidating manifestation of their evil intentions. So this will not be an easy row to hoe. But it may be the most important one -- for now.

Terrorist Attack Or Simply Random Violence? More Than 50 Dead Or Injured At Virginia Tech

[Update: The death toll stands at 32 in the deadliest mass shooting in US history.]

I don't like Mondays either but this is too much (from Sue Lindsey of the AP via Toronto's Globe and Mail):

Gunman kills 21, wounds 21 at U.S. university

BLACKSBURG, Va. — A gunman opened fire in a dormitory and a classroom at Virginia Tech on Monday, killing 21 people and wounding another 21 before he was killed, police said.

“Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions,” university president Charles Steger said. “The university is shocked and indeed horrified.”

The university reported shootings at opposite sides of the campus, beginning about 7:15 a.m. at West Ambler Johnston, a co-ed residence hall that houses 895 people, and continuing about two hours later at Norris Hall, an engineering building.

One student was killed in the dorm and the others were killed in the classroom, Virginia Tech Police Chief W.R. Flinchum said.

After the shootings, all entrances to the campus were closed and classes cancelled through Tuesday.

“There's just a lot of commotion. It's hard to tell exactly what's going on,” said Jason Anthony Smith, 19, who lives in the dorm where shooting took place.

Aimee Kanode, a freshman from Martinsville, said the shooting happened on the fourth floor of West Ambler Johnston dormitory, one floor above her room. Kanode's resident assistant knocked on her door about 8 a.m. to notify students to stay put.

“They had us under lockdown,” Ms. Kanode said. “They temporarily lifted the lockdown, the gunman shot again. We're all locked in our dorms surfing the Internet trying to figure out what's going on."

Madison Van Duyne, a student who was interviewed by telephone on CNN, said, “We are all in lockdown. Most of the students are sitting on the floors away from the windows just trying to be as safe as possible.”

It was second time in less than a year that the campus was closed because of a shooting.

In August, 2006, the opening day of classes was cancelled and the campus closed when an escaped jail inmate allegedly killed a hospital guard off campus and fled to the Tech area. A sheriff's deputy involved in the manhunt was killed on a trail just off campus.

The accused gunman in that case, William Morva, faces capital murder charges.

Condolences to all the friends and families of the victims, of course.

And then what?

If the dead killer turns out to have been a Moslem, we will hear all sorts of nonsense about "campus jihad" and "sudden jihad syndrome", and the mouth-breathing wingnuts will scream about how the national media is shortchanging their political agenda by not immediately branding the shooting "Islamic terrorism".

Otherwise, the mouth-breathing wingnuts will say nary a word, and anyone who seriously wants to know why the incident was not immediately branded "terrorism" -- regardless of the shooter's religion -- will be considered an enemy of the state ... the same state that can read every one of your emails and listen to every one of your phone calls but which can't prevent maniacs from bringing weapons into public places and killing other people with them.

In other words, now that the Bill of Rights is meaningless, do you feel any safer?

Bob Koehler: Devil Weed

Here's a rarity: a column by one online friend about another.

The friends are Bob Koehler (photo ==>) and Bernie Ellis (<==) respectively. Bob is (among other things) a columnist whose work has appeared here once in a while; Bernie is (among other things) an election integrity advocate. And that's how all our paths crossed.

Back in July of 2005, Bob and Bernie were both kind enough to participate in the first annual one and only "BradBlog Blogathon", for which event it was my honor to serve as host (and to contribute a few articles).

The other guest bloggers, by the way, were Clint Curtis, Bob Fitrakis, Larisa Alexandrovna, David Cobb, Chris Floyd, Gandhi, Josh Mitteldorf, and John Amato. And they all contributed good articles and/or live-blogged very interesting threads (in other words, all these links lead to gold!). But I digress.

Fast forward to the present, or nearly so, anyway. Bernie has been ...

Wait a minute. I'm getting ahead of myself here. I should know better.

The thing to do is let Bob tell the story.

Devil Weed
Dark shadow of ignorance hangs over Bernie's farm

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”

So of course a guy like Bernie Ellis — who signs his letters with this catchphrase, and who lives it in so many ways, doing what needs to be done, putting himself in the vanguard of vital social movements like the one for fair elections (which is how I know him) — would eventually get nailed for crossing a line.

How easy to have played it safe, but Ellis, who until a year and a half ago lived on a 187-acre farm 40 miles southwest of Nashville, Tenn., and worked as a public health epidemiologist, had been growing, along with other crops, a small amount of medical marijuana on his farm. The recipients over the years, via their social workers, were terminally ill AIDS and cancer patients, who obtained nausea and pain relief from what has been called (by no less than Francis Young, a Drug Enforcement Administration law judge) “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”

For reasons that will probably forever remain murky, Ellis’ farm was raided in August 2002. A few days earlier, a local dealer had tried to buy some pot from him and was told to shove off, so the suspicion lingers that the dealer turned him in. Two helicopters swooped overhead and eight or nine officers of the Tennessee Marijuana Eradication Task Force entered his property — a lot of hoo-hah, you might think, for seven pounds of weed, worth about $7,000.

Ellis was interrogated for two hours and freely “confessed” to his activities. Indeed, at the very moment of the raid he’d been crafting recommendations, at the request of New Mexico’s then-Gov. Gary Johnson, on how that state could establish a program making cannabis available immediately to patients in need. He gave the officers a printout of his proposal. How guilty can you get?

“I said this from the beginning,” Ellis told me. “I’m not ashamed of what I’m doing.”

And he wasn’t arrested. The Task Force officers did some checking around and learned that Ellis was not only well known but highly respected among county officials. His troubles didn’t begin till the federal government became interested in his case — and this gets at the core outrage of the whole matter. The zeal to keep marijuana criminalized in the face of so much evidence — it has 50 to 100 therapeutically beneficial subcomponents and has been studied in connection with the treatment and control of Alzheimer’s, brain tumors, epilepsy, MS and even schizophrenia, among much else — emanates from the federal level.

Welcome to the Bush administration’s other bogus war: the war on drugs. Science be damned. Rationality, compassion and state’s rights be damned. What matters is the continual drawing of random and arbitrary borders, which are then ruthlessly defended no matter what. And with the drawing of borders comes the creation of enemies, and in the world of herbs, marijuana is the enemy — the devil weed, no matter how medically useful.

As Ellis noted, “Every federal commission since Nixon has recommended reclassifying marijuana, allowing it to re-enter the medical pharmacopoeia.” Yet the feds have been known to prosecute medical marijuana growers even in states that have legalized it. Twelve have done so, including, most recently, New Mexico, whose law, signed last month by Gov. Bill Richardson, incorporates the recommendations Ellis was working on at the time of the raid.

No matter. In federal court, Ellis was prosecuted as an ordinary drug dealer and convicted. Though his sentence was relatively lenient — an 18-month term in a federal halfway house, which ends in May — he has incurred some $70,000 in legal debt and, far more frightening, faces the loss of his farm in a federal civil action.

The Nashville community has rallied to his support, and a series of benefits are planned. If you’re interested in contributing to the cause, see www.saveberniesfarm.com.

“If you really do believe what you’re doing is not wrong, then you’ve threatened the foundation of their legitimacy,” Ellis said. “You’ve raised your head above the foxhole.”

For my friend Bernie’s sake, I truly hope the forces of rationality are successful. And I recoil at the idea that his beautiful farm, where he has lived for four decades, could be fed into the maw of “example,” a reminder to like-minded others that an ignorant and arrogant administration is in power right now and will impose the Dark Ages on all of us for as long as it can.

Thanks once again to Bob and Bernie: please support the effort to save Bernie's farm (if you can), and do be sure to bookmark Bob's excellent "Common Wonders", where there's a new column every week and the archives are worth their weight in gold pixels.

Peaceful Protesters Threatened And Assaulted By Those Who Claim To Protect Their Freedom Of Speech

[updated below]

In this post, two eyewitness accounts from yesterday's peace march in Washington, both provided by friends from the Baltimore area. (Full disclosure: I have edited both of these items very slightly, mostly for spelling and punctuation. I have also added a bit of context [in square brackets] and a few links.)

R.O.:

I just got back from the Rally. What a much different experience from the other relatively peaceful ones! Confrontational: scary at one point. Went with Pete and some of the women from [the] Sept '05 [demonstration], and Margaret, and Gabe (African American -- I tell you this to paint the picture). We took the van all the way in. Great parking on the street. But in Starbucks we encountered the start of it. Vietnam vet in military gear. His group something Eagles (screaming a-holes, see this site) was called in by some right-wing group who told them we were going to deface the monuments, including Vietnam ones. I'd estimate a thousand or more of these guys.

"They" had the area near the start of demo all mazed off in fencing. You tried to go one way and "they", backed by the Park Service Police, blocked your access, and told you you can't go that way. Then there was a security checkpoint like at the airport near the war memorial. So we decided to go around all that. At one point, one of the guys pushed me (ERRRRRRRRRRRR) and it took all my control not to do it back and get arrested -- and the Park Police pushing me and others getting in my face. And, same with Margaret who is very level-headed but questioning them. "They" got right in Gabe's face and were saying some ugly things. Pete called them &*^^%%$$$ Fascists! My heart was a pounding and I was SO happy to get out of there and in friendly territory. Some yelled "I'd go to war for her!" and others saw my Buck Fush t-shirt and yelled "buck you", and one guy called Margaret "ass" and worse etc. etc.

We walked over the bridge to the Pentagon to the stage (some of those WV, brainless pro-war guys were on the sidelines holding up signs that said "Peace Sucks", "Here and There" and more) -- there were fewer people than other marches (maybe 50,000-100,000)? the weather deterred folks -- cold and windy. Good speakers, though, from all over world. Midway thru one of the speakers interrupted and said the police (dressed like storm troopers) had created a barricade not even near Pentagon and had sprayed some of the demonstrators with mace. I didn't see it, but heard they all of a sudden showed up (sirens wailing) and did this (unprovoked). Margaret and I stayed till the end, as the others were too cold and left before all the speeches. We took the train back to Baltimore. Stopped by a campout of demonstrators on way out -- quite a contrast to the rumored quarters of the pro-Bushies (rumor, too? -- who knows!!).

This one was tense and not as upbeat...

J.P.:

It was an important day to be in Washington, DC. And while many Americans busy themselves with their own personal lives, whether the kids have done their homework, or whether the car will be out of the shop on time, or even ponder what plan for season tickets they want for baseball season, too many still are only barely conscious that their country started it’s fifth year in Iraq. Our rogue government seeks to keep it that way.

I am very fortunate to have met and joined with so many people and friends that do care about more than their own very tiny, small lives. Is that redundant? I don’t think so. I know my own life is a tiny grain of sand upon a vast beach. But it does take all those grains of sand to make the beach.

Let it be known, I am NOT anti-war, but only against wars of aggression perpetrated by those who have profited in the amount of trillions in weapons, contracts and alliances with unsavory governments and selling them weapons. This happened in the 80’s. Iran contra. But few remember that those involved with that (who were pardoned), are the ones once again in charge now. Many Americans are stunted with long term memory loss. Well, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, and here we are once again. I am so angry at those people for forgetting or simply deeming high crimes and treason negligible.

A friend and I had decided to join the march on the Pentagon today, joining with tens of thousands of others, maybe hundreds of thousands once again to protest the war and truly support our troops and veterans. I can’t see. I am short.

However, this day was different. I knew it would be since it was publicized that the motorcycle group Rolling Thunder would be there in opposition as they were concerned that the “anti war” protesters would somehow "deface and desecrate The Vietnam War Memorial." I am NOT lying to you. (link to their site). Somehow they felt a bunch of peace activists were going to damage the national monument which bears the names of over 55,000 dead soldiers who gave their lives in the illegal immoral war for profit of 40 years ago. After 40 years, they still believe that peace activists spit on soldiers, a lie that was fabricated and encouraged by the administration and propagandists of the time.

To me, it was nothing less than astonishing to see that a number of people have been so brainwashed to believe that we are anti troop, don’t know the value of freedom and are “anti-democracy”. What was more astonishing were those that were completely ignorant of the Bill of Rights, that they challenged and acted physically aggressive to the peace activists, minding their own business, trying to get to the march.

My friend and I were two of those, and had mistakenly found the wrong area in which to try to get to where the march was forming. I had nothing outwardly to show my anti-war stance. My friend, however, wore several peace buttons. We really said nothing to the crowd, but the Iraq war and Bush supporters had plenty to say to us. We were told that we should be ashamed of ourselves, that we should support the troops and the president. Funny, but do they know what is being done to our troops, to lecture us in such a way? I suppose they thought they redeemed themselves by saying “it’s a free country and we had the right to free speech.” In truth the Bill of Rights allows them to say what they wish. However, their words indicated the very opposite of free country and free speech.

And well after a long walk, we dared to stop in the public restroom. Really, we thought we were in a “mixed” crowd at first. I pretty much kept my mouth shut, but I listened to the other women in the bathroom ranting about “those stupid war protesters” and “I guess we gotta go out and yell at them again” and “why don’t they understand our soldiers are fighting for our freedom? Why don’t they remember September 11th?” I can tell you there was not one New Yorker in that public restroom. Lucky there was not ... for all of our sakes. And I hate to say it, but their accents really were “red-state”. I guess the schools are bad there? Ignorance.

And so we passed through this sea of leather and flannel clad people with their signs of “God Bless America”, “We love our president”, and “support the troops”. And as we passed through amidst the angry, antagonistic jeers of those who saw my friend’s buttons, we heard the Rolling Stones blasting over their PA. Funny, I wonder why the Stones latest “Sweet Neo-Con Con” was not playing. It just goes to show magnified the ignorance of many in this country.

We realized this was no mix of Americans for and opposed to the war, but rather it was a stark symbol and reminder of the carefully planned Psy-Ops creating division among our people. This was not a friendly disagreement or difference of opinion. The “pro bush, pro-war” side was out for blood and angry. And they saw us as traitors and Anti-American. But which side, do you think, actually knew what the Bill of Rights actually used to guarantee us?

We made our way through to where we could see the peace marchers, and there was a barricade/jersey wall that separated where we needed to be. However the bikers blocked our path and told us they had the permit, and we were not allowed through. Really, this was a public monument and property. And they were NOT security, but citizens angry at the “traitorous” peace activists. He advised us we would have to walk through the crowd for several blocks and around. We gave up for a moment, paying attention to another scene that was unfolding.

And there also was a man probably in his 40’s, who held an “Impeach Bush” sign, and a small child in his arms. Like us, he had obviously entered in on the wrong side of things. But those of the pro war group quickly surrounded him and began screaming at him obscenities and to get out. The man (and child) tried to move and several rushed in and began pushing and pulling at them, trying to rip the sign out of his arms and telling him he was not allowed to leave their area with it. At which point the man started yelling back at them. This caused the women to yell about taking his child from him and the men proceeded to move in, like nothing less than a pack of wolves, grabbing him and pushing and shoving him. It was more than obvious that they wished to gang beat him. The men had little regard for the child and they would not let him leave. Thankfully, a police officer rushed in solo ... what a brave thing to do. He yelled at the Rolling Thunder people to clear a path and got the man, the child and the rest of us out of there. Ignorance and violence is a scary thing.

I lamented to myself that the bikers had surrounded the Viet Nam Memorial and I was prevented by their temperament from seeing it. Sadly, it seemed to me that it was they who desecrated that amazing wall with their hatred, ignorance and violent nature. I wanted badly to be able to see that wall. I did not mention it to my friend. There was no way it would have been possible.

We finally arrived at the march. It was an amazing site as the number of people gathered really did dwarf the gathering by Rolling Thunder which was by far small in comparison. The number of pro war bikers really was representative of the 30 percent who back Bush and the war. When put up against the peace crowd. That was heartening.

I was cursing though as the images of the one crowd against the other could not be captured due to most likely faulty batteries. Especially, when members of each crowd were shouting angrily. We were met with signs such as “Go To Hell Traitors” which to me was particularly memorable as well as the obscenities, hate and “FU”s screamed at the peace group as they marched past. Mostly the peace group was shouting “This is what democracy looks like” back at the bikers. And finally, fed up, I began to shout “Support Our Troops” which got a few others started and for a moment there was silence from the bikers. Pardon my language, but I am so god damned tired of hearing “Support Our Troops” from the Bush zombies who have no clue as to what sacrifices our troops are really making and how they are being taken advantage of.

I know this is a long story. Much happened today, and I did not have my camera to depict it. We did march until we reached the Pentagon where we had the parking lot and a stage was set up. There were many many speakers, memorable to me were the parents of fallen soldiers, Giuliana Sgrena, Cindy Sheehan, and also former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. And yeah, get over the anti McKinney propaganda. She was lynched because she worked harder and knew more than most in Congress bothered to. Don’t write me about either Cindy either, if you believe the slander and lies. Spare me regurgitation of the hate propaganda. I’m sick of it.

I want it also noted that up on one of the bridges at the pentagon, police in full riot gear complete with masks and clubs pushed a number in the crowd off of the bridge where they were. It should also be noted that many of the escalators in the Metros near the Pentagon had been turned off, making them almost impossible to use to get back to the center of DC. Odd, isn’t it, that the escalators in our nation's capital “just weren’t working” on a Saturday?

Lastly, it was huge and empowering. Don’t think for a minute that I feel protests are going to stop this war. The Democrats the people elected have granted the president authorization to attack Iran, and later Syria and Lebanon. The only thing that will stop the war is if the rest of this country wakes up before a war of a much larger scale happens.

Many people just don’t care in America. It’s just not their problem. And others of us who took the red pill can assure them: it will be.

Many thanks to J.P. and R.O. for attending the rally, and for sharing their experiences with us.

As always, your comments are most welcome.

[UPDATE]

For a great deal of background please see Gavin M. at Sadly, No!
Anatomy of a Con Job