Giuliani for President Vote your conscience

Ron Paul: A New Hope

Democrats and Republicans give consent to the Police State

The Political Inquirer
Posted on November 21, 2007 by Lance

The `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007‘ is the official stamp of the Congress’s disapproval of the United States population. The utter disregard, dislike, and essentially hate that the Congress has against the American people is shown by the vote. With a passage of (404-6) in the House of Representatives, the bill has moved on to Joseph Lieberman’s Homeland Security Committee. With such overwhelming results in the House, there is little doubt the Senate will pass it.

This bill doesn’t charter a “thought police”, as Ralph Shaffer put it in the Baltimore Sun, it does define homegrown terrorism as threats to the standing social order. Let’s take a look at some of the terms:

• VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
  
• HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
  
• IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

The planned or threatened use of force or violence. If a government operative were to “incite violence”, would this be enough to respond with the full force and action of the United States military against the said group?

Is there some sort of imminent danger we’re facing here?

In the centuries that America has existed, we have never before faced internal threats except, largely, those from our own government. The Communists may have wanted to incite a riot but that is probably as far as they got–most Americans would have just beat the Communists in the head a couple of times, no need for police on any level. There were little rebellions of socialist strains, but other than that, every major riot incited was due to bad decisions of the government.

Article Source: The Political Inquirer >>read more

The Daily Left December 3rd

Republicans form a new plot to rig the 2008 election

Last updated November 30, 2007 4:32 p.m. PT
By JOHANN HARI
GUEST COLUMNIST

In the long, hot autumn of 2000, the world was shocked by the contempt for democracy shown by the Republican Party. They knew their man had lost the popular vote to Al Gore by half a million votes. They knew the majority of voters in Florida itself had pulled a lever for Gore. But they fought -- amid the confetti of hanging chads -- to stop the state's votes being counted, and to ensure that the Supreme Court imposed George W. Bush on the nation.

Today, that contempt for democracy is on display again. In California right now, there is a naked, out-in-the-open ploy to rig the 2008 presidential election -- and it may succeed.

To understand how this works, we have to roam back to the 18th century and learn about the odd anachronistic leftover they are trying to use now to thwart democracy. Back then, America's Founding Fathers decided not to introduce a system where U.S. presidents would be directly elected, with the votes totted up in Washington, D.C., and the winner being the man with the most. Instead, they chose a complex system called the Electoral College.

This stipulates that American citizens do not vote directly for a president. Instead, they technically vote for 539 statewide "electors," who gather six weeks after the election to pick the president.

The founders designed it this way for a number of reasons. They wanted the smaller states to have a say, so they gave them a disproportionate number of Electoral College votes. They also believed that, in a country that was largely isolated and illiterate, voters wouldn't know much about out-of-state figures and would be better off picking intermediaries who could exercise discretion on their behalf.

It is the worst part of the Constitution, producing perverse results again and again. On four occasions there has been such a big gap between the national popular vote and the state-by-state Electoral College votes that the guy with fewer real supporters in the country got to be president. It happened in 1824, 1876, 1888 and -- most tragically for the world -- in 2000.

Today, the Republicans are trying to exploit the discontent with the Electoral College among Americans in a way that would rig the system in their favor. At the moment, every state apart from Maine and Nebraska hands out its Electoral College votes according to a winner-takes-all system. This means that if 51 percent of people in California vote Democrat, the Democrats get 100 percent of California's electoral votes; if 51 percent of people in Texas vote Republican, the Republicans get 100 percent of Texas' electoral votes.

The Republicans want to change this -- but in only one Democrat-leaning state. California has gone Democratic in presidential elections since 1988, and winning the sunny state is essential if the Democrats are going to retake the White House. So the Republicans have now begun a plan to break up California's Electoral College votes and award a huge chunk of them to their side.

They have launched a campaign called California Counts, and they are trying to secure a statewide referendum in June to implement their plan. They want California's electoral votes to be divvied up not on a big statewide basis, but according to the much smaller congressional districts. The practical result? Instead of all the state's 54 Electoral College votes going to the Democratic candidate, around 20 would go to the Republicans.

If this were being done in every state, everywhere, it would be an improvement. California's forgotten Republicans would be represented in the Electoral College, and so would Texas' forgotten Democrats. But by doing it in California alone, they are simply giving the Republicans a massive electoral gift. Suddenly it would be extremely hard for a Democrat ever to win the White House; they would need a landslide victory everywhere else to counter this vast structural imbalance against them on the West Coast.

You can see this partisan agenda if you look at who is behind the campaign. It was set up by Charles "Chep" Hurth III -- a Republican donor to Rudy Giuliani. It was drafted by Tom Hiltachk -- a Republican attorney. Its signature drive was coordinated by Kevin Eckery -- a Republican consultant.

Its funds were provided by Paul Singer -- a Republican billionaire and one of Giuliani's biggest donors. Its chief fundraiser is Anne Dunsmore, who went there straight from her post as national deputy campaign manager for Giuliani.

Seeing a pattern yet?
Full story: Republicans form a new plot to rig the 2008 election