Are you a fellon who can't vote? Don't worry, there's a job for you... Controlling everyone's vote.

I knew this was coming. I've been fighting the urge to even discuss Iowa and New Hampshire. I've had to sit back and check my facts and cross reference my sources. Further down on this page, I used to have an embedded version of "Hacking Democracy", a very important documentary that illustrates how easy it is to build an empire using the simplest code and electronic voting machines. Diebold are at the forefront of the criminal vote changing/stealing/nullifying. If you've seen "Hacking Democracy" then you are familiar with Bev Harris of Blackboxvoting.org, and yesterday she once again thrust Diebold directly into the spotlight. Ken Hajjar, the Marketing and Sales Director at LHS Associates was arrested, indicted, and pleaded guilty to "sale / CND" (sale of controlled narcotic drugs) and sentenced to 12 months in the Rockingham County Correctional facility, and fined $2000. As things go for the politically connected, he was then given a deferred sentence and $1000 of his fine was suspended. LHS Associates is a private company that counted over four fifths of the New Hampshire vote with no oversight whatsoever and also holds Diebold contracts for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Follow this link for a copy of Ken Hajjar's criminal record. In case you're not sure about what you saw with the criminal record sheet. He's a convicted Narcotics Trafficer. "They program every single voting machine in New Hampshire, Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine." Harris comments. "But did state officials in five New England states ever do a criminal background check on this company's executives? Do the laws of these five states even ALLOW them to hire convicted criminals for services paid for by the state? What about over 500 local towns and municipalities?" What's even more disconcerting is the information provided in a Ken Hajjar interview. While I'm not going to get into who got cheated and how many discrepancies are gushing from the wound of the New Hampshire primary, but for a bit of illustration on how completely rigged this system is, all you have to do is look at the suspicious percentages that Rudy "The Steaming Pile" Giuliani received: Campton, Hampton, and Sandwich are townships in New Hampshire. Campton - 604 votes VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots - Giuliani = 55 votes = 9.11% Hampton - 3,141 votes VOTE COUNT METHOD: Diebold Accuvote optical scan ; contractor: LHS Associates/John Silvestro - Giuliani = 286 votes = 9.11% Sandwich - 395 votes VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots - Giuliani = 36 votes = 9.11% How fucking sick is it that in three townships, Giuliani gets 9.11% of the vote? There's so much corruption connected to all of this that in order for it all to be exposed, a person would have to devote their lives to it an create a website to supply the information to you. Luckily, that person is not me. You want more information and fact? Visit Blackboxvoting.org. Be prepared, however, to be shaken to the very foundation of your liberties. It is your responsibility to make sure that your vote counts. I don't really care who you vote for, but don't you want your vote to count?

Obama sounds what should be the death knell of his public/political career.

Remember that "Thought Crime" legislation that I wrote about not too long ago? If not, scroll down and educate yourself. Barack Obama supports this legislation, and this fact alone should end his political aspirations. We have had enough fascist legislation foisted upon us in the last eight years; we do not need any more. This truly sickens me, and I hope that you will take up the torch of liberty and engage in this battle as well. Obama to Support Homegrown Terrorism Bill By Jessica Lee, The Indypendent Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama says that he will support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959). According to the automatic email responses constituents are receiving from his office, Obama appears to be straddling the fence between preserving civil liberties and being tough on terrorism. “The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe. They also insist that our responses to threats respect the constitution and do not violate the basic tenets of our democracy,” Obama’s email said. Several people who have written to Obama have posted his response on various blogs, including “Justin” who’s personal blog was picked up on diggs.com. “I wrote Senator Obama (my senator from Illinois) about this act, which is now in a committee of his (the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs). I asked that he read the bill (not to insult his intelligence, but after the Patriot Act it appears this is a necessary request for most senators), and that he recognize the dire consequences that could result from its vague language,” Justin wrote Dec. 6 below the post of Obama’s email. “He’s quite eloquent, you’ve got to give him that. This act ‘includes provisions prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts from violating civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. citizens.’ Didn’t we used to have something like that? What was it called? Oh right… The Constitution.” The House version of the bill, H.R. 1955, passed Oct. 23 by a vote of 404-6 under the “suspension of the rules,” a provision that is available to quickly pass bills considered “non-controversial.” Obama is on the 17-member Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where S. 1959 was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) Aug. 2. “I will keep your important comments in mind as I work with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. I will work to ensure that this legislation helps to achieve our domestic security objectives while protecting civil liberties and constitutional rights,” Obama stated in his email to Justin. Many scholars, historians and civil liberties experts say they fear that the proposed bill will set the stage for future criminal legislation that be used against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations. “This bill fits the pattern we are seeing coming out of Congress – both Republican and Democratic – of a continued campaign of fear, which gets into heads of Americans that we now need to start criminalizing ideology,” said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. He said he is very concerned about the bill’s vague definitions of “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and the terms within the definitions including “extremist belief system,” “violence” and “force.” “What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this?” Queral questioned. “Planes flying into the World Trade Center is an extremist belief, but are anti-abortion activists extremists? Are individuals who liberate mink extremists? These are broad definitions that encompass so much, which need to rather be very narrowly tailored. It is criminalizing thought and ideology, rather than criminal activity.” Jules Boykoff, an assistant professor of politics and government at Pacific University and author of Beyond Bullets: The Suppression of Dissent in the United States, told The Indypendent said he is concerned about how the government is broadening the definition of terrorism. “Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act is a law that created a new brand of terrorists, the ‘domestic terrorist.’ Under this definition, the civil rights work Martin Luther King, Jr. did could have been construed as an act of ‘domestic terrorism,” Boykoff said. In a Nov. 30 Common Dreams article, ‘Homegrown’ Suppression of Dissent,’ Boykoff provided a historical-based critique of who could be included under the umbrella definition of terrorism. “Even a cursory look backward through U.S. history reveals heroic figures who could be dubbed ‘violent radicals’ or ‘homegrown terrorists’ under the proposed bill, from U.S. revolutionaries like Sam Adams to gun-toting slavery abolitionists like John Brown to militant civil-rights organizers like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.” Kamau Franklin, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), also expressed concern that H.R. 1955/S. 1959 will foster a legislative momentum on criminalizing a broad range of dissident voices. “The Commission’s broad mandate can lead to the ability to turn civil disobedience, a form of protest that is centuries old, into a terrorist act,” he said. “My biggest fear is that they [the commission] will call for some new criminal penalties and federal crimes,” says Franklin. “Activists are nervous about how the broad definitions could be used for criminalizing civil disobedience and squashing the momentum of the left.” “It’s possible that someone who would have been charged with disorderly conduct or obstruction of governmental administration may soon be charged with a federal terrorist statute,” Franklin said. Many activists and civil liberties advocates have expressed concern across the nation on blogs and radio shows about how the bill’s use of vaguely defined terms can be seen within a historical pattern of sweeping government repression of dissenting voices throughout the history of the United States where citizens have been targeted for their political beliefs. Two generations of Americans experienced first hand the two “Red Scares” (1917-1920 and 1940-50s) and the FBI’s secret Counter Intelligence Program, nicknamed COINTELPRO, which enabled the FBI to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” domestic protest groups for “subversive activities” and “potential crimes.” To many, the similarities between COINTELPRO and the bill are unsettling. The proposed legislation calls for the National Commission to “examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence in the United States” in order to develop policy for “prevention, disruption and mitigation.” This investigation is needed, according to stated Congressional findings, due to possible threats to national security. The secret program continued until it was discovered COINTELPRO was investigated by a U.S. Senate select committee on intelligence activities (commonly known as the Church Committee) which convened in 1975. The Church Committee found that from 1956 to 1971, “the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.” In the last 30 years, significant evidence has surfaced about how the FBI and local law enforcement disrupted non-violent social and political movements, even “neutralizing” individuals through target assassinations. The secret program was vast, with agents monitoring and agitating people involved in the “New Left,” including anti-Vietnam War efforts, the civil rights movement, the Black Panthers, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the American Indian Movement, Puerto Rican independence groups, popular musicians and counter-cultural and revolutionary independent newspapers. OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE VIEWS ON THE BILL Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said that he believes the proposed bill is unconstitutional. Speaking to a crowd of supporters in New York City Nov. 29, Kucinich took several questions from the audience, including my question asking why he voted against the bill. Kucinich was one of only six representatives to oppose the bill on Oct. 23. “If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Kucinich said. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.” Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was one of the 22 House members not present for the vote. A small demonstration against S. 1959 took place outside Senator Hillary Clinton’s office in New York City Dec. 10. Her office did not return an Indypendent’s call for comment. – Read Jessica Lee’s Nov. 16 article on HR 1955: “Bringing the War on Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How to ‘Disrupt’ Radical Movements in the United States.” Blog Update Dec. 2 — Kucinich Opposes H.R. 1955 Blog Update Nov. 27 — Opposition to the Bill and how the Legislation would Target the Internet Read the proposed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: H.R. 1955 S. 1959 This article was taken from The Indypendent

LET'S START A WAR!!! The 60 Minutes you weren't supposed to see.

There's some Ron Paul stuff at the end of this item. You're either pro Ron Paul or you're not, but that's not the issue of this post. The 60 Minutes segment speaks for itself.

Lions and Tigers and Bears... OH MY!!!

See that image up there? Keep coming back to it in the coming days. In four days it will be the 6th anniversary of 9/11. Now, you know me, I don't like to use 9/11 as an example for anything, and even more so, I despise the media and the White House for using 9/11, Sept. 11, and any other reference, when attempting to justify the further usurpation of the Constitution. Here's the rub. Osama, is supposed to magically make a State of the Union to the American people on 9-11-07. Convenient, huh? The propaganda machine is running overtime and extra oilers had to be hired just so this machine wouldn't burn itself to the ground. The machine is fabricating fear and apprehension in order for you to support anything that they may say or do. You'll be teary eyed in remembrance, you'll be afraid that something terrible is going to happen, because that bad man bin Laden is making another speech. Never mind the fact that we haven't heard from Osama in years. But hey, his showing up on the anniversary of a crime that he's been accused of and you should be afraid, right? Never mind that after he had served his purpose and we were in the full run up to the invasion of Iraq that Mr. Bush stated, when asked about bin Laden, "I don't know where he is. I don't know and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." OK, whatever you say. Seems that we're making a pretty large fuss over a man who isn't important, and not our priority. Oh, wait, damn... He wasn't important then, because we had used him as a straw man to create fear and hatred in the hearts of the American people. He wasn't our priority because we put him back into the box to be used another day. Well, that day is coming up folks. Your about to get a dose of bin Laden with your breakfast, lunch, and diner. Why? Because you don't really buy the, "Let's invade IRAN!!!" line... Yet. You have to be stormed in on during the middle of the night by cardboard bin Ladens in order to placate you and send you back to your remotes and the latest episode of whateverthefuck you watch. Remember, the New York Times told you earlier this week that you should get over 9/11 already, damn. You need to let go of the past and just stop worrying about what happened. You just keep your eye on that image up there. And while you're looking at it, take notes on the complete line of shit that you're being spoon fed. Just fucking pay attention and stop toeing the party line. There is no party anymore. Anyone who holds on to the party line and tells you that they'd be glad to give up some freedoms to keep the lifestyle that they currently enjoy is a fucking five-gallon-bucket full more dangerous than a straw man put up by the propaganda machine in order to put doubt and fear in your hearts. Osama? The last bin Laden video was in October 2004, shortly before the U.S. presidential elections. Convenient? As Buggs would say, "Meh, could be." Oh, and by the way, Michael Chertoff says that your 'unequivocally' safer now than you were before 9/11. Now, don't you feel better? What will make you feel even more safe? Grounding every single USAF plane that is tasked for the protection of the US should do it, right? When? Sept. 14, 2007. Look that one up on your own. In the words of a couple good men: "Good night, and good luck."

Don't want a National ID? DHS says, FUCK YOU!!

In a thinly veiled attempt at circumventing Congress and not making a public scene, the Department of Homeland Imprisonment, ahem... Security is working with, so far, a couple of state houses to implement a new ID. Where's the harm in that? Seeing as how Congress is against a National ID, because WE THE PEOPLE, are against a National ID, that is the harm in that. How does this equate to a National ID? If DHS implements it in all, or a majority, of states, then what we effectively have is a National ID. Once that happens, Congress will bend to the will of DHS and the state houses because, "Well, it's already in place in most of the US; might as well push it through." And just like that... You've been tagged with a National ID. Oh, and ummm, that's the MARK OF THE BEAST for you end-time/Revelations types. For the rest of us, it's total control of personal information/finances. No, your Social Security Card is not a form of ID. Have you ever read your SSC? links? Oh hell yes, I have links. DHS and Vermont get together for a special ID. DHS and Arizona get together for a special ID. And before you ask... Yeah, you're next.

Is there no end to the complete dumbass of main stream media talking heads.

These fucking people shouldn't be allowed to speak, let alone speak to the nation as if they have any real input. This silly cunt, Erin Burnett, says that if China stops making poisoned food or non-lead painted toys, that the prices at Wal-Mart are going to go up, and that the American people don't want that. Oh yeah, and China's our best friend right now. What a smoking load of horse shit. Are you people out there not even paying attention to the shit that you watch on t.v.? Or is the idea of not thinking like those around you, or being an outcast that much of a problem for you. I say we ship this silly bitch to China so she can see who her friends are.