The defense comes at a critical time in the administration's effort to quell the growing political uproar over the N.S.A. program. House Democrats will be holding their first hearing Friday on the legality of the program, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled another hearing in two weeks. A number of legal analysts, meanwhile, including those at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have questioned the legality of the program in strong terms.

But the Bush administration appears undeterred by the criticism. In its white paper, it turned time and again to the congressional authorization of Sept. 14, 2001, even though the Congressional Research Service study was particularly skeptical of this line of defense.

The white paper "is not a blank check that says the president can do whatever he wants," said Steven G. Bradbury, an acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. But at the same time, he said, the president must use all the tools available to him to fight terrorism.

Vice President Dick Cheney defended the administration's approach today in a speech before the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in New York City.

"A spirited debate is now under way, and our message to the American people is clear and straightforward," Mr. Cheney said. "These actions are within the president's authority and responsibility under the Constitution and laws, and these actions are vital to our security."

In his appearance before the institute, Mr. Cheney defended the program as proper and legal in every respect. "The entire program undergoes a thorough review within the executive branch every 45 days," Mr. Cheney said. "After each review, the president determines once again whether or not to reauthorize the program. He has done so more than 30 times since Sept. 11, and he has indicated his intent to do so as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related organizations."

The president authorized the program after the Sept. 11 attacks, allowing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

Comment: Rawstory notes "No formal congressional hearing has been scheduled by the Republican congressional leadership to examine the taps, despite widespread concern among civil liberty advocates and constitutional scholars."

America, this is the defining moment. It is easier to resist at the beginning than at the end. It may already be too late. But you won't know until you try. It is a lot easier to spend a few minutes writing a letter demanding that this violation of the Constitution be investigated as a criminal act, sending copies of it to every congressman, even those not your own reps, and to all your newspapers, than it is going to be to have to take to the streets when you finally have had enough. Those streets will run with blood, possibly your own. For now, all you have to spill is some ink.

Do it today. Urge everyone you know to do it. Blanket Washington in paper. Remember, normal, decent people are the majority and the psychopaths in power are a small minority and they know it. They fear your action. Make them afraid.

THE BIG LIE

Who tells the truth to a man -- or perhaps a nation -- driving into the setting sun, convinced he's heading due east?

By Garrison Keillor
SALON.COM

It's good to know how to lie, and lie effectively, so you can go backstage after the high school production of "The Crucible" in which your friend's daughter mumbled her lines and stood like a fencepost, trying to look horrified and looking drugged instead, and now here she is, fluttery, ashen-faced, perspiring, and you say, "It was fascinating to watch. You were so in the moment, Lindsey. So believable. It really resonated with that audience, there was so much intensity." The truth is that she has no more talent than the average cocker spaniel -- but so what? There's no need to face the truth all at once.

People ask you how you are, you say fine, even if you have a grinding headache. People congratulate you on having done a fine job raising your children, you say thank you, even though you know the truth.

On the other hand, one should not lie to oneself. If the book you've been working on for two years is a leaking boat that needs to be scuttled, this is not to be denied. You look in the mirror and it's clear: The zero-dessert policy must now go into effect. Your wife says your drinking is a problem. That means it's a problem.

On the third hand, self-deception is useful. Some things are better endured by ignoring them. Old age, for one. The whining sound under your seat on the 727 flying over Lake Michigan, for another. And when you're feeling overwhelmed by your obligations, it's better just to put on your blinders and haul the beer wagon forward.

But everyone needs a few friends with whom one can be honest. I quit smoking 20-some years ago because my friend Butch Thompson and I promised each other that we'd try to quit, and that before smoking another cigarette, we would call up the other one and tell him. This worked like a charm. I dreaded having to make that call, so did he, and we each trusted the other to be honest. This is what friends are for. If you go and do a shameful thing, such as shoot your parents so you can inherit their estate, you should have at least one friend to whom you could confide the cheesy details. You'd say, "I couldn't believe that was me, aiming the pistol at the back of Mom's head as she stood at the Mixmaster. I am feeling, like, totally remorseful right now. And I'm wondering if, like, it might've been a sugar rush from, like, the Twinkies." And the friend would say, "Well, you were having some big mood swings. And the job market is tight, so naturally you were anxious about money. But those bright orange coveralls look rather striking on you. And this Plexiglas partition between us doesn't bother me as much as I had thought it would. And I don't think you would've been a good parent anyway, so it's lucky that you won't have to face that question."

I have not been that sort of close confidant to my friends, alas. They don't reveal the seamy underside of their lives to me, perhaps because I am a writer who might exploit their shameful story, or perhaps because they have no shameful secrets to share. Or because they believe you're supposed to say "Fine" when someone asks how you are.

But who tells the truth to the man who is driving straight into the setting sun and thinks he's heading due east? His wife murmurs that, uh, maybe we should look at a map, and he accuses her of being a defeatist who tries to tear him down any way she can in order to conceal her own lack of ideas.

The man is heading the wrong way and speeding and the idiot light is flashing -- low oil pressure -- and the idiot is trying to be manly and authoritative but everyone can see he's faking it, hoping for God to rearrange the landscape for his convenience.

Someone ought to speak up, and yet he is fascinating. As the administration is these days, so resonant and believable.

The Arctic icecap melts and the Chinese finance our tax cuts and someday we will have spent six years and trillions of dollars to bring democracy to Iraq, whatever that may mean, and the SUV of state turns toward the setting sun, driven by cocker spaniels.

And there is so much intensity there, and they are so much in the moment.

(Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion" can be heard Saturday nights on public radio stations across the country.)

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website allenroland.com He also guest hosts a monthly national radio show TRUTHTALK on Conscious talk radio www.conscioustalk.net

There are so many liars and whores who sell their integrity for the sake of influence, power, or money, it is reasonable to assume that ANYONE appointed or recruited by the Bush team is corrupt, dishonest, untrustworthy and likely to betray the interests of the United States for the sake of the interests of the Bush administration.

We've seen, again and again, how Bush appointees are happy to end protections to workers, consumers, the environment. They are happy to violate the constitution, to buy politicians, evade regulations and whereever possible, elimination rules that require corporations and the wealthy to be responsible and liable.

This criminal corruption operates on a trickle down basis. As the leaders in Washington go, so go the right wingers, mostly republicans, but some democrats too, at the state and local level. And let's not forget the crooked, dishonest, lying, unchristian hate mongers who pretend to be ministers of god, running massive megachurches or televangelical programs.

In the myth, Hercules diverted a river to clean out the accumulations of shit that had built up in King Augeas' stables. We have a similar situation here-- years of shit-- corrupt, bought and paid for politicians passing laws that weaken or eliminate regulations, laws that give huge gifts to corporations, laws that take away protections.

We need a Hercules to clean out Washington. Just as Hercules was never paid for his work, we can expect the work of cleaning up Washington to be a thankless task. The people who do it won't get rich. Neither did the heroes of the American Revolution.

It won't take one Hercules. It WILL take a Herculean effort. It WILL require courage and smarts. Courage and smarts. That's something we really don't see much of in the Washington "stables." We see empty windbags making deals to maintain their power, doing favors for friends-- lobbyist buddies. And that adds more shit on the floor of the stable, more cleaning to be done.

The problems start with the political process. Republican or Democrat, candidates are culled if they don't raise massive amounts of money. That's the main criterion used to decide if a candidate is viable. Rahm Emanuel blew off Christine Cegelis because he didn't think she could raise as much campaign money. It's partly Emanuel's fault, but it's mostly the fault of a system that is driven by money. It takes a lot of money to run the ads necessary to let people know who a candidate is. And it costs more to swiftboat attack a candidate or defend from such attacks.

The airwaves are the property of the people. We should take them back and give candidates a reasonable amount of free ad slots to use for their campaigns and primaries. We could just legislate that the TV networks and local stations would be REQUIRED to give up the time, in all the different time periods, not just after midnight and Sunday at seven AM.

We could give candidates an allowance of free postage and even a budget for free printing.

We could provide candidates with equal numbers of lawn signs and bumper stickers. Part of winning a campaign would involve responsible, effective management of resources.

Image the idea that candidates would not have an advantage based on the number of PACs, wealthy supporters and corporations that backed them. They'd have to exercise good management, good hiring and good decision skills to use the same resources their competitors used.

But we don't have that. So many political "leaders" judge candidates by the money they can raise. Integrity, leadership, vision-- these don't matter. The ability to stay on the phone calling rich donors is the main skill that the DCCC the DSCC the DNC, the RNC all value.

It's disgusting. It's bad for America. It will take major, courageous, selfless leadership by the people who are already tainted by the system, since they had to become the phone dialling money askers to win their campaigns.

It's time to change the rules so we can clean out the corruption, the money driven political scenario that has become accepted as the way things are.

There are a lot of incumbents lounging in the stables in Washington. We need a Herculean effort by a lot of people of integrity to clean out the stables. Perhaps the "river" will be a drastic change in election laws that will eliminate the influence of big money.

Rob Kall is editor of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology.

Daschle went on (and we remember this well, because BuzzFlash took him to task in numerous editorials) to praise Bush and his cabinet selections with such zealousness, it was revolting. BuzzFlash particularly documented Daschle's homepage in early 2001 that discussed how proud he was to attend the inauguration of the wonderful President Bush, and Daschle bragged about how he regularly consulted with Bush.

But Daschle, his staff whispered, was just playing a two-sided game. He was shoring up his support in ultra-red state South Dakota, but assuring Democrats that the Maginot Line of compromise would be the Supreme Court.

As part of the deal, Daschle didn't even force a filibuster on the Ashcroft nomination. Up until the moment of the Ashcroft confirmation vote, Daschle said he didn't know how many Dem Senators would vote against the controversial appointment, even though he was Democratic leader. Heck, even Russell Feingold voted for Ashcroft in the Judiciary Committee, saying that he took Ashcroft at his word in the hearings that he would uphold the laws of Congress and the Constitution.

So Ashcroft became Attorney General, and we were told that the Dems would hold the line at the Supreme Court. And then vote after vote, we were told, the Dems would hold their powder until a Supreme Court nominee came up.

And then one Supreme Court nominee came up, and the Dems held their powder. And then another Supreme Court nominee came up, Sam Alito, who threatens the very viability of Congress, and the Dems are going to hold their powder again.

Daschle is long gone, the victim of unrelenting Republican attacks in the 2004 election, including a dirty tricks web operation by the infamous Jeff Gannon. He finally fell off his tightrope act that saw him running to be in photos with Bush and then running back to the Senate to criticize the White House, and then running to apologize for his criticism.

But we are stuck with a legacy of losses and defeats for democracy. The Democrats keep giving ground in the name of fighting later. But the fights they claimed to be their true battle -- the Supreme Court nominees -- ended up being their Waterloo. They have been shown to be paper tigers.

BuzzFlash is sad to say that we predicted as much in a series of commentaries, but if the Democrats in the Senate are anything, they are consistent in losing and wandering around in a dazed and confused state of defeat. (See Of Tyrants, Kings, Alito and Bush - January 4, 2006, Thank God our current Senate Democrats weren't at Lexington and Concord! - January 6, 2006, "The Big Show" -- Confirming Alito Moves Us One Step Closer to Erasing the American Revolution - January 9, 2006, The Real Thing - January 11, 2006)

Strength comes from the fight in your gut, not the swagger in your talk.

You can consider the Busheviks the evil empire, as we do, but they don't lack passion, conviction and determination.

The Democratic Senators, with some exceptions, seem not to know even what they should have conviction about.

A "no" vote on Alito means nothing. Don't let the Feinsteins and Bidens of the world try to convince you otherwise.

Losing, yet again, means nothing, as Bush secures his solid majority on the Supreme Court -- and the Democrats enable him to become a modern day Caesar with "Unitary Executive" (dictatorial) powers.

The only victory is a filibuster.

There is no need to review the farce of the Alito "hearings." As we have editorialized, both sides know exactly where Alito is coming from. He has a Department of Justice and judicial record that comprehensively and proudly displays that he is an advocate and strategist for a Republican Imperial Presidency, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, discrimination against people with disabilities and more.

If 43 Democrats vote "no" on Alito, he is still on the Court (Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska has already said he will vote FOR Alito). The Democrats notch up another defeat. Only this time, they are hanging themselves, because Alito believes that Congress is irrelevant to the will of a Republican President.

That is not conjecture. That is fact.

Harry Reid had the makings of another Harry Truman. He has a great All-American up-by-his-own bootstraps, rough and tumble, Nevada upbringing. But he can't be Harry Truman if he can't lead his caucus to victory.

Dick Durbin, the second in command of the Senate Democrats, is as fine and smart an elected official as BuzzFlash has met. But, he's not someone to force the Joe Bidens, Dianne Feinsteins and Ben Nelsons of the world into line by threatening to cut off their committee assignments and perks.

The Democrats will never gain the confidence of the American public that they can stand up to terrorists when they can't even stand up to the Republicans. Your strength as a leader is defined by winning, not by losing.

With every compromise the Democrats in the Senate make, they just appear to be retreating more, however much they dress up their small skirmishes as victories. They are just fading further into irrelevance.

And the lack of will to filibuster Sam Alito is going to make them irrelevant alright, because the laws Congress passes will be subject to virtually any interpretation Bush wants to make of them. And Bush will be allowed to break laws at will because Alito and the rest of the Bush royal court justices believe he has the powers of a Monarch, unfettered by our Constitutional system of checks and balances.

Bush keeps giving the Democrats in the Senate rope and they keep hanging themselves, at a time when Bush is the one who should be on the ropes.

The radical Republicans who run our country have the number of the Senate Democrats. These Washington establishment career politician Dems define themselves by what they have become: losers who won't put up a fight.

And now they are about to put themselves out of business.

I’ve been through two wars, been to a county fair, and watched a goat roping but I’ve never seen anything like the Senate hearing at the Arizona State Capitol today.

Today’s hearing, rescheduled by Senator Jack Harper (R) Chairman of the Senate Committee On Government Accountability And Reform, sought to clarify election integrity issues involving mysteriously appearing votes in a 2004 Republican primary election.

Chairman Harper’s subpoena overcame a questionable refusal to appear by County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Defying the subpoena issued by Chairman Harper could have brought contempt charges against Thomas and Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell and Elections Director Karen Osborne whom Thomas had earlier enjoined not to appear.

Watching with incredulity at the proceedings were several election integrity activist groups, some lobbyists for electronic voting machines, a representative of Arizona Clean Elections, print, television, radio, and independent media, family and many other concerned citizens.

Interest in election integrity has grown in Arizona around what may make Maricopa County, the fourth largest county in the country, the poster child for election fraud. The hearing room was filled to overflowing requiring a partition to be opened to accommodate the increasing observers.

The last time I saw a group of people self-destruct like this in front of an audience was when I was at the circus where I watched one of those little clown cars come careening out from the curtains, squishing through the elephant dung, crashing into the center ring, and sending them flying in all directions.

First up was a summary presentation of the report by elections expert, Dr. Douglas Jones from the University of Iowa, by Sen. Harper’s research analyst, Kimberly Martineau. Ms. Martineau’s PowerPoint presentation deftly and clearly explained the major conclusions from Dr. Jones’ report in which he concluded that, “Without empirical examination of a random sample of voted ballots, there is no way to decide . . . [if] the ballots have been altered . . . [or] that ballots were miscounted by poorly calibrated machines.”

Professor Jones went on in his report to say, “Election officials appear to lack fundamental knowledge of how their election machinery operates . . .”.

Which brings us to the first unsworn testimony of the day by Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne. Ms. Osborne, who looks for all the world like a kindly grandmother straight out of central casting, began by taking questions from Chairman Harper. Chairman Harper, who was exceptionally well prepared for his hearing and masterfully conducted the questioning bringing to mind a younger version of the late Senator Sam Irvin of Watergate fame. Sen. Irvin would play the country bumpkin backwoods lawyer role, disarming his prey before he ripped his adversary into tiny pieces.

Chairman Harper, in a similar disarming way, asked the elections director, straight up, if she believed the elections of 2002 were honestly and accurately counted. She replied that yes, they were.

Chairman Harper then asked about the elections in 2004 and received the same simple answer without explanation or qualification. The questioning of the witness by Chairman Harper, who was joined in the questioning by committee members Senator Thayer Verschoor (R) and newly appointed Senator Paula Aboud (D), then elicited some of the most uncanny and unintentional responses by Ms. Osborne.

I think Karen Osborne was sincere in the answers she gave to the Committee. When asked if she had read Dr. Jones report, remember the report that basically said you haven’t a clue about how to administer elections or what your job is, she paused and stammered out an answer like, “Well, have I actually done an in-depth reading of the report, well, I uh, ahem, no, actually I’ve just skimmed, cough, over the top.”

However, it seemed as though we had really journeyed through the looking glass as Ms. Osborne’s testimony laid out, in detail, as stated in Dr. Jones report, unintentionally I’m sure, what I can only say is one of the better arguments for why we should never vote on electronic voting machines again . . . ever!

She was flummoxed into talking about how the different inks in pens could affect whether a machine would count a vote, if the machine was calibrated correctly, if the lens wasn’t scratched or dirty, if the ballot was inserted sideways or upside down, something about paper weight and pencil erasures, and whether someone used crayon or eyebrow pencil or Sharpie® pens and that mail-in ballots were all weird because people used all sorts of things and didn’t follow directions, etc., etc., etc.

She compared the voting machines to a purchase of two cars, two Lexus’ no less, that everyone knows that two cars off the same factory line won’t be the same. That’s right, Karen, I really want to enter the polling booth with my fingers crossed hoping that I got the good machine today. Maybe machines made on Wednesday are better than those on Monday or Friday and we could learn the serial numbers so we could . . . Oh, good grief!

When asked about the whereabouts of the ballots in question and their storage conditions, Ms. Osborne launched into a fantastic description of a cement block house somewhere, she wasn’t sure where (confirmed now by County Treasurer David Schwiekert that the ballots are not in the County Treasurer’s vault which is required by law), that had no windows or air conditioning and that the ballots were being subjected to temperatures of over 200°F and the humidity and the ballots could be unreadable by now some sixteen months after the election!

When asked by Chairman Harper if she thought that the ballots should be allowed to be inspected, regardless of unknown alleged condition, Ms. Osborne paused and answered as though she were about to plead her 5th amendment rights. She took a breath then refused to answer the question. She instead referred the question to the County Attorney for an answer.

Well, ya coulda heard a pin drop as the audience just stared in concerned amazement and perspicacity, instantly grasping the implications of Election Director Osborne’s blatant dodging of a simple question.

Round Two

The not so artful question dodging was then displayed by Maricopa County Recorder, Helen Purcell. To say that she came to the podium posing as a “dittohead” saying, “What she said,” would be just a bit, but not much of, an oversimplification. In fact, when asked some of the same questions Ms. Purcell either plaintively turned to Ms. Osborne, who reports to her, or simply didn’t know the answer to questions she should have. Ms. Osborne didn’t help her boss’ seeming incompetence much when she leapt from her seat, rushing to the podium a number of times to rescue Ms. Purcell from questions she hadn’t a clue about.

When asked by Chairman Harper if she had read the Jones report Ms. Purcell, like Ms. Osborne, hemmed and hawed before saying, “No, no she hadn’t.”

I’ll bet you my first born child that the introductory briefing given by Chairman Harper’s research analyst was the most in-depth reading of the Jones report that either of these two senior elections officials in Maricopa County had ever done. Recalling my previous life in “Corporate World,” had I delivered such a stunning display of incompetence and ignorance of the facts before senior management with the value (in this case the trust of the people) of the company at stake in a major presentation such as at this Senate hearing, I would have been given a cardboard box and escorted out of the building by the end of business.

The Main Event

Osborne and Purcell only set the stage for the real star of this theater of the absurd, County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

By now the committee members expressions were ranging from passive attention to piqued interest. That would soon change to pissed-off incredulity at the performance of the County Attorney.

Listening to Andrew Thomas answer questions was like trying to nail Jello® to a wall! The gallery and the committee strained rationality, reason, and finally their patience in trying to follow the twisted, circuitous, circular, obfuscations, and stonewalling answers given by Thomas.

Chairman Harper began the questioning with Sen. Verschoor joining in providing intuitive and insightful follow-ups designed to elicit at least the semblance of a straight answer from Thomas. No luck!

Mr. Thomas veered off into accusations of illegality in the use of Chairman Harper’s subpoena power, resoundingly dismissed by the Senate Ethics Committee just two days before. Thomas questioned the independence of Dr. Harper’s report erroneously citing that it was entirely paid for by an independent weekly The Phoenix New Times. In fact, Senate President Ken Bennet has picked up the expenses for the report with The Phoenix New Times only paying travel expenses.

Thomas continued his obfuscating attack by trying to impugn the bone fides of Dr. Jones to which Chairman Harper stopped Mr. Thomas saying that, “Dr. Jones qualifications as a recognized expert in electronic elections has been well established. Since he is not here to question your qualifications as an attorney, I will not allow you to question Dr. Jones’ qualifications.”

Mr. Thomas opined about what value would there be in inspecting the ballots (Like, maybe, finding the truth! And anyway, since the county elections officials have such true belief in their system, that the ballots have been honestly and accurately counted, why wouldn’t Thomas want to get this monkey off his back?).

In a display of contempt or ignorance of the numerous statements by all involved in this investigation, that it is not about changing the results of a legally certified election, that it is about the integrity of all elections themselves, Thomas droned that the effort and costs involved were not justified because the election could not be reversed anyway.

Except for Chairman Harper’s skilled management of the hearings, Mr. Thomas would have gone on ad infinitum, ad nauseum sticking to his strategy to deliberately say nothing of value to the committee.

Failing to elicit substantive answers from Thomas, Chairman Harper drilled Mr. Thomas about his “sandbagging” the Chairman when he previously sought to gain access to the ballots for Dr. Jones’ evaluation.

In the early stages of his investigations Sen. Harper was told by County Treasurer David Schwiekert that he would not release the ballots without a court order. Sen. Harper was informed by County Attorney Thomas that he would not oppose a court order to obtain the ballots of the LD 20 primary.

When the court order was filed some days later, the judge of the court informed Sen. Harper that the County Attorney was now standing in opposition to the order. In effect, County Attorney Andrew Thomas lied to Sen. Harper.

Mr. Thomas has further gone on record with news media and anyone who would listen accusing Sen. Harper of “bizarre and erratic behavior” in a blatant attempt to marginalize Sen. Harper’s investigation. Mr. Thomas vocalized his rants in whatever venue would report them.

Asked repeatedly about his role in flip-flopping on the court order, Thomas tried to degrade the hearing into a display of invective and spleen. Chairman Harper admonished Thomas that, “This is not about you. This is not about I (sic). This is not about the two candidates. This is about the integrity of elections!” The audience erupted into applause.

Appealing to a nobler purpose by Chairman Harper didn’t even phase Thomas’ outlandish and dubious strategy. He simply would not answer the question of the day asked repeatedly by Chairman Harper and Senator Verschoor, “Will you allow inspection of the ballots?”

Thomas went round in circles charging that inspection of the ballots was at the direction of his clients, without naming his clients, who are the county elections officials, Osborne and Purcell.

It was Osborne and Purcell who had originally referred answering the question to their attorney, who is Mr. Thomas.

Repeatedly asked the question, “Do you see any reason why the ballots should not be allowed to be inspected?” by Sen. Verschoor and repeatedly led down circuitous paths nowhere approaching an answer to the question, Sen. Verschoor burst out exclaiming, “It’s a simple yes or no question, sir! Will you allow inspection of the ballots?”

Again, obstinate and unfazed, Mr. Thomas ducked the question. Owing to time constraints and other commitments, Chairman Harper gaveled the almost three hour hearing to a close with another hearing to be scheduled later.

The more I know, the more I know I don’t know.

Why did three senior Maricopa County elections officials, one elected and two appointed, refuse to answer the essential questions of a Senate Committee On Governmental Accountability And Reform? What are they trying to hide, here?

During the questioning, the requirements on how long ballots must be retained were discussed. For county elections the law states that the ballots must be saved for six-months, for federal elections, 22 months. So, the ballots are still available . . . or are they?

No one is allowed to inspect them, to see if they are in the vault (which they aren’t) or in a secret secure location with Vice-President Cheney or where the Hell they are!

Does the fact that there are other more significant candidates and offices on the ballot than a little ole’ Republican primary in a largely yuppie filled district have any sinister significance? Could other races be thrown into suspicion?

Why is newly elected Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas willing to undergo closer and closer scrutiny and put his reputation on the line to block a puny primary recount? Why didn’t Senate President Bennet just pony up for the project in the first place since it was clearly a good governance issue that could be politically advantageous and available on the cheap? We are not much closer to answers to those questions, but we may be uncovering a larger truth as we step back to “see the whole board!”

What I’ve written today is meant to be an entertaining, informative, incredulous, first-person description of today’s Senate hearing. To understand how really horrible this story is becoming and the dangerous ramifications of new revelations, read John Dougherty’s article in The Phoenix New Times, “Ballot Boxing” at
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2006-01-19/news/dougherty.html
for a thorough analysis of an unfolding scandal of immense ramifications.

Michael Shelby of Arizona Citizens for Election Reform (ACER) can be reached at mshelbyinaz@cox.net.

The Florida panhandle is thorough-going Republican. Even Democrats run as Republicans. Nevertheless, the newspaper’s editor, Ron Kelley, believes that American political life is measured by something larger than party affiliation. In his editorial, "The shepherds and the sheep," Kelley reports that two Florida counties have banned any further use of Diebold voting machines after witnessing a professional demonstration that the machines, contrary to Diebold’s claim, are easily hacked to record votes differently from the way in which they are cast by voters.

The pre-election statement by Diebold’s CEO that he would work to deliver the election to Bush was apparently no idle boast. In five states where the new "foolproof" electronic voting machines were used, the vote tallies differed substantially from the exit polls. Such a disparity is unusual. The chances of exit polls in five states being wrong are no more than one in one million.

Miller describes considerably more election fraud than voting machines programmed to count a proportion of Kerry votes as Bush votes. Voters were disenfranchised in a number of ways. Miller reports incidences of intimidation of, and reduced voting opportunities for, poorer voters who tend to vote Democrat.

Some of Miller’s evidence is circumstantial. However, he documents widespread Republican dirty tricks and foul play. The media’s indifference to a stolen election burns Miller as much as the stolen election itself.

Miller is not alone in his concerns. The non-partisan US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in response to congressional request investigated a number of complaints regarding the electronic voting machines.

Here are some of the problems noted in the GAO’s September 2005 report:

* Some voting machines did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected.
* It was possible to alter the machines so that a ballot cast for one candidate would be recorded for another.
* Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level.
* Access was easily compromised and did not require a widespread conspiracy. A small handful of people is sufficient to steal an election.

Curiously, the media has shown no interest in the GAO report. In my opinion, a free press has proven to be inconsistent with the recently permitted highly concentrated corporate ownership of the US media.

The electronic voting machines leave virtually no paper trail and their use involves private potentially partisan corporations tabulating the votes with proprietary software that is not transparent.

A number of counties in various states have decided to return to paper ballots that can be verified and recounted. But now that Republicans have learned that they can use the electronic machines to control election outcomes, the disenfranchisement of Democrats is likely to be a permanent feature of American "democracy."

Other reports claim that the under-sampling by pollsters of Democratic voters creates a percentage bias that exaggerates the number of Republican voters by as much as 5 percent, thus providing cover for vote fraud. If hard-to-reach Democratic voters, such as the working poor, are less likely to answer telephones, polls can create the illusion that there are more Republican voters than in fact exist. If the electronic voting machines are then rigged to shift 5 or 6 percent of the vote to the Republican candidate, the result is not at odds with the expected result and can be used as "evidence" to counter the divergence between exit polls and vote tally.

The outcome of the 2004 presidential election has always struck me as strange. Although Kerry was a poor candidate and evaded the issue most on the public’s mind, by November of 2004 a majority of Americans were aware that Bush had led the country into a gratuitous war on the basis either of incompetence or deception. By November 2004 it was completely clear that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and that Bush had rushed to war. People were concerned by the changing rationales that Bush was offering for going to war. Moreover, the needless war was going badly and the results bore no relationship to the rosy scenario painted at the time of the invasion. It seems contrary to American common sense for voters to have reelected a president who had failed in such a dramatic way.

Miller directs our attention to Bush’s high-handed treatment of dissenters. If electronic voting machines programmed by private Republican firms remain in our future, dissent will become pointless unless it boils over into revolution. Power-mad Republicans need to consider the result when democracy loses its legitimacy and only the rich have anything to lose.


Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

In fact, this year's congressional races and the presidential contest in 2008 are already over, and the Bushists have won. It's true that some of the candidates have not yet been chosen – including whatever front man the goon squad picks to replace the kill-crazy klutz from Crawford – but the vast machinery of electoral malfeasance that propelled this extremist faction to power over the wishes of the electorate in both 2000 and, yes, 2004, is not only still in place, it's growing stronger all the time.

No one has laid bare the malodorous innards of this democracy-devouring monster better than Mark Crispin Miller, whose new book, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too, takes us back to the dastardy of Election Day 2004 and the hydra-headed campaign of vote-rigging that preceded it. This second heist of the White House is one of the great untold stories of our time – even though it was largely carried out in plain sight. Miller performs the simple but increasingly rare act of journalism and gathers a mountain of overwhelming evidence from publicly available material. This is no "conspiracy theory" stitched together from anonymous sources, strained inferences and dark innuendo, but a solid case based on official records, sworn testimony, eyewitness accounts, news reports – and the Bushists' own words.

Indeed, the game was actually given away long before the balloting, when one of the Faction's congressional waterboys, Representative Peter King, was captured – on film – boasting that the fix was in. At a White House chow-down in summer 2003, King was asked who he thought would win in 2004. "It's already over," King said. "The election's over. We won…It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."

Indeed they did. As often noted here, tens of millions of votes are now counted using paperless, easily-hackable electronic voting machines programmed – and often administered – by a handful of corporations whose officers are unabashed Bush backers. Two of these, the notorious Diebold and lesser-known, equally shadowy ES&S, were kickstarted by right-wing tycoon Harold Ahmanson, once the major backer of the "Christian Reconstruction" movement – which advocates total theocratic rule of state and society by Christian mullahs, with death for homosexuals, disenfranchisement for unbelievers, and slavery for debtors, among other delights. [See Vanishing Act: Disappearing the Republic at the Touch of a Button and Pin Heads: The New Bush Push for Theocracy.]

With these corporations at the helm, the 2004 vote was the most shambolic in American history, plagued by an epidemic of machine breakdowns and shortages (almost entirely in key Democratic precincts), and by a rash of "glitches" that "inexplicably" switched the voter's intended choice to a different candidate, or added hundreds or even thousands of "ghost" votes to a candidate's total. In every single recorded case of such "accidents," the beneficiary of these unearned votes was George W. Bush. Meanwhile, as in 2000, strange voting patterns emerged in pockets across the country, where unknown fringe candidates unaccountably received thousands of votes – at the expense of the Democratic candidate.

Of course, gaming the electronic voting grid was only part of the operation. Voter suppression techniques first unlimbered in 2000 were polished to a high sheen in 2004 – including purges of deliberately misidentified "felons" from the rolls; mass intimidation campaigns in poverty-ridden districts (e.g., "official" notices that anyone owing back rent, child support, unpaid traffic tickets, etc. would be arrested if they tried to vote); reducing the number of polling stations in Democratic-leaning precincts and stocking them with old, derelict machines; and a sophisticated, nationwide scam of deceitfully "registering" Democratic voters – who then discovered they were not on the books when they showed up to vote. The Republican National Committee paid millions to the man behind this flim-flam, the theocrat and Bush insider, Nathan Sproul.

The 2004 vote also saw the repetition of the exit poll debacles of 2002 and 2000, with the final results in each case defying the poll data to a remarkable degree. For decades, exit polls have proven so consistently reliable that they are used by many institutions – including the U.S. State Department – to gauge the fairness of elections around the world. Yet only in the United States – and only in the last three elections involving the Bush Faction – have they have failed utterly to jibe with the always "surprising" official tally.

This overview only scratches the surface of Miller's mountain of damning facts. But the book also includes insightful analysis to help us understand just how this gaggle of militarists, millenarists and money-grubbers have managed to seize – and keep – power in a decayed, sclerotic Republic whose institutions have proven too weak to withstand the gang's fanaticism – and too corrupt to resist the bribery, "legal" and otherwise, that the Bushists dole out from public and private coffers.

Despite the scandals, the indictments, the mounting death count in Iraq, and the ever-deepening unpopularity of Bush and his minions, the Faction's tools for "manufacturing consent" – so ably exposed by Miller – are greased and ready, unchallenged by the clueless, spineless Democrats and the dollar-dazzled media. So look for more "astonishing upsets" and poll-confounding "surprises" in the coming national elections, as brute power rapes reality once again

Copyright Chris Floyd http://chris-floyd.com/

At the center of a congressional bribery investigation, Abramoff gave money to Republicans while he had his clients donate to both parties, though mostly to Republicans.

In her Sunday column, ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties," prompting a wave of nasty reader postings on post.blog.

There were so many personal attacks that the newspaper's staff could not "keep the board clean, there was some pretty filthy stuff," and so the Post shut down comments on the blog, or Web log, said Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com.

"We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it," Brady wrote on the newspaper's Web site. "There are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech."

Reid came under attack Wednesday over the report, which was issued by his staff on Senate letterhead, even as he and fellow Democrats released ethics overhaul proposals.

"Researching, compiling and distributing what amounts to nothing more than a campaign ad on the taxpayers dime raises serious ethical questions," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, one of the lawmakers named.

The 27-page report criticized Republican lawmakers over their ties to disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, questionable campaign contributions and other issues.

Meanwhile, the head of the Republican Party said GOP lawmakers who are guilty of wrongdoing should expect to be punished whatever their political affiliation.

"The public trust is more important than party," said Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman. "Which is why the first solution to the problem is rooting out those who have done wrong, without regard to party or ideology."

Mehlman's comments were in a speech that he planned to deliver Friday to the annual winter meeting of the Republican National Committee. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the speech.

The Abramoff investigation threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials. Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud his Indian tribe clients, has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is cooperating with prosecutors.

With the midterm elections 10 months away, Democrats have tried to link Abramoff to Republicans, the main recipients of his largesse.

Two senior Republicans have already taken a fall because of their ties to Abramoff.

Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, announced after Abramoff's guilty plea that he would not try to regain the post he relinquished after being indicted on separate campaign finance charges in Texas. Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, temporarily stepped down as chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mehlman said the GOP must earn the public's trust by recommitting itself to reform.

Responding to the influence-peddling scandal, Republicans and Democrats have introduced similar ethics reform packages.

Mehlman said the response to the scandal should not be "partisan hypocrisy." He criticized Reid for calling the Abramoff affair a Republican scandal. Reid has come under fire for his own ties to Abramoff, including accepting money from Abramoff's tribal clients.

Four Senate Democrats sent a letter to senior administration officials on Thursday calling on them to disclose any dealings with Abramoff such as meetings, memos or favors.

The Democrats said the record should be "cleared and that any contact you or others in the administration have had with Mr. Abramoff be fully explained to the American people."

Lecture notes without a tape recording net $50, and even non-attendance at the class while providing copies of the teaching materials is worth $10.

But the initiative has prompted concerns that the group, the brainchild of a former leader of the college's Republicans, is a witch-hunt. Several targeted professors have complained, figures associated with the group have distanced themselves from the project and the college is studying whether the sale of notes infringes copyright and contravenes regulations.

The Bruin Alumni Association's single registered member is Andrew Jones, a 24-year-old former student who gained some notoriety while at the university for staging an "affirmative action bake sale" at which ethnic minority students were offered discounts on pastries.

His latest project has academics worrying about moves by rightwing groups to counter what they perceive to be a leftist bias at many colleges.

The group's website, uclaprofs.com, lists 31 professors whose classes it considers worthy of scrutiny. The professors teach classes in history, African-American studies, politics, and Chicano studies. Their supposed radicalism is indicated on the site by a rating system of black fists. The organisation denies on the website that it is conducting a vendetta against those with differing political views. "We are concerned solely with indoctrination, one-sided presentation of ideological controversies and unprofessional classroom behaviour, no matter where it falls on the ideological spectrum."

But in another posting, it is clear just where on the spectrum the group thinks the bias might fall. "One aspect of this radicalisation, outlined here, is an unholy alliance between anti-war professors, radical Muslim students and a pliant administration. Working together, they have made UCLA a major organising centre for opposition to the war on terror."

James Rogan, who served two terms in office, sent an email on Wednesday to Andrew Jones, the head of the Bruin Alumni Association, saying he did not want his name connected to the group. Mr Rogan's resignation follows those of the Harvard historian Stephan Thernstrom and the UCLA professor emeritus Jascha Kessler, who both resigned from the board once they learned of the group's activities.

The group has been offering students up to US$100 (£57) to supply tape recordings and notes from classes to expose professors suspected of pushing liberal political views on their students. The targeted professors have likened the effort to a witchhunt.

"Any sober, concerned citizen would look at this and see right through it as a reactionary form of McCarthyism," said Peter McLaren, an education professor whom the association named as No 1 on its list of The Dirty Thirty: Ranking the Worst of the Worst.