Chuck Hagel’s Questionable Election Wins

This  article by Thom Hartmann from ten years 0ld ago seems relevant (or at least interesting) as former Senator Chuck Hagel awaits confirmation as Secretary of Defense:

“If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines”

By Thom Hartmann/ Common Dreams/ January 31, 2003

Maybe Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel honestly won two US Senate elections. Maybe it’s true that the citizens of Georgia simply decided that incumbent Democratic Senator Max Cleland, a wildly popular war veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was, as his successful Republican challenger suggested in his campaign ads, too unpatriotic to remain in the Senate. Maybe George W. Bush, Alabama’s new Republican governor Bob Riley, and a small but congressionally decisive handful of other long-shot Republican candidates really did win those states where conventional wisdom and straw polls showed them losing in the last few election cycles.

Perhaps, after a half-century of fine-tuning exit polling to such a science that it’s now sometimes used to verify how clean elections are in Third World countries, it really did suddenly become inaccurate in the United States in the past six years and just won’t work here anymore. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the sudden rise of inaccurate exit polls happened around the same time corporate-programmed, computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machines began recording and tabulating ballots.

But if any of this is true, there’s not much of a paper trail from the voters’ hand to prove it.

You’d think in an open democracy that the government – answerable to all its citizens rather than a handful of corporate officers and stockholders – would program, repair, and control the voting machines. You’d think the computers that handle our cherished ballots would be open and their software and programming available for public scrutiny. You’d think there would be a paper trail of the vote, which could be followed and audited if a there was evidence of voting fraud or if exit polls disagreed with computerized vote counts.

You’d be wrong.

voting machines[3]

The respected Washington, DC publication The Hill (www.thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx) has confirmed that former conservative radio talk-show host and now Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel was the head of, and continues to own part interest in, the company that owns the company that installed, programmed, and largely ran the voting machines that were used by most of the citizens of Nebraska.

Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company’s computer-controlled voting machines showed he’d won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel’s “Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election.” According to Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.

Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel “was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska.”

What Hagel’s website fails to disclose is that about 80 percent of those votes were counted by computer-controlled voting machines put in place by the company affiliated with Hagel. Built by that company. Programmed by that company.

“This is a big story, bigger than Watergate ever was,” said Hagel’s Democratic opponent in the 2002 Senate race, Charlie Matulka (www.lancastercountydemocrats.org/matulka.htm). “They say Hagel shocked the world, but he didn’t shock me.”

Is Matulka the sore loser the Hagel campaign paints him as, or is he democracy’s proverbial canary in the mineshaft?

In Georgia, Democratic incumbent and war-hero Max Cleland was defeated by Saxby Chambliss, who’d avoided service in Vietnam with a “medical deferment” but ran his campaign on the theme that he was more patriotic than Cleland. While many in Georgia expected a big win by Cleland, the computerized voting machines said that Chambliss had won.

The BBC summed up Georgia voters’ reaction in a 6 November 2002 headline: “GEORGIA UPSET STUNS DEMOCRATS.” The BBC echoed the confusion of many Georgia voters when they wrote, “Mr. Cleland – an army veteran who lost three limbs in a grenade explosion during the Vietnam War – had long been considered ‘untouchable’ on questions of defense and national security.”

Between them, Hagel and Chambliss’ victories sealed Republican control of the Senate. Odds are both won fair and square, the American way, using huge piles of corporate money to carpet-bomb voters with television advertising. But either the appearance or the possibility of impropriety in an election casts a shadow over American democracy.

“The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected,” wrote Thomas Paine over 200 years ago. “To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery..”

That slavery, according to Hagel’s last opponent Charlie Matulka, is at our doorstep.

“They can take over our country without firing a shot,” Matulka said, “just by taking over our election systems.”

Taking over our election systems? Is that really possible in the USA?

Bev Harris of www.talion.com and www.blackboxvoting.org has looked into the situation in depth and thinks Matulka may be on to something. The company tied to Hagel even threatened her with legal action when she went public about his company having built the machines that counted his landslide votes. (Her response was to put the law firm’s threat letter on her website and send a press release to 4000 editors, inviting them to check it out.

“I suspect they’re getting ready to do this all across all the states,” Matulka said in a January 30, 2003 interview. “God help us if Bush gets his touch screens all across the country,” he added, “because they leave no paper trail. These corporations are taking over America, and they just about have control of our voting machines.”

(Continued/ Read Entire Article Here)

Boldface added by BPR Editor
Posted in elections, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Somebody Tell the Government

BPR Quote of the Day:

“There is no inverse relationship between freedom and security. Less of one does not lead to more of the other. People with no rights are not safe from terrorist attack.”

Molly Ivins

red-hot-patriot_2_feature

Posted in government, Quotations, Terrorism | Tagged , | 2 Comments

It’s Time to Choose: Democracy or Plutocracy?

By Arlen Grossman/ The Big Picture Report

The ease with which Harry Reid capitulated to Mitch McConnell on filibuster reform has me worried about a lot of things concerning the Democratic Party, in particular the elections in 2014 and beyond.

Our nation’s method of electing candidates is seriously flawed, what with the antiquated electoral college system, GOP voter purging, voting rule manipulation, gerrymandering,  private voting machines without paper trails, freewheeling campaign financing, and other tricks which make the prospect of electing progressive Democrats  somewhat akin to running through a minefield of Diebold voting machines. In no way can the Democratic Party afford to passively sit back when it comes to fair and democratic elections.

Of immediate concern to me is the cost of getting elected, which was made considerably worse by the horrendous Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court in 2010 that essentially took away any restrictions on campaign funding, without even ensuring (at the very least) full disclosure.

Corporation

Matt Wuerker/Politico

There was buzz about it last year, but of late the subject has taken a back seat to other Republican election trickery. Another complicating factor is that despite the influx of billions of dollars into the election campaign last year, the strategy mostly failed. President Obama managed to achieve a decisive victory, and much of the billionaire-funded right-wing Super PAC money seemed to have gone to waste. Thanks to Obama and the Democrats’ victories, there is more complacency among Democrats on this issue, so that election finance reform is seen as less urgent than more recent GOP tricks and manipulation.

Democrats will ignore campaign finance at their own peril. I believe 2012 was an anomaly. We can’t count on a strong Democratic incumbent/weak Republican opponent scenario in upcoming elections. The Obama campaign team had an extraordinary organization, which built on its successes in 2008 and wasn’t afraid to go hat in hand to big corporations and other wealthy contributors.  With good reason, as those with the largest campaign chest have historically done better than underfunded opponents.  As well as Democrats in Congress succeeded in this past election cycle, there is no way of knowing how much better they should and would have done without the heavy influx of corporate cash available to their GOP opponents.

President Obama failed to mention campaign finance reform in his 2013 State of the Union address, the first of these in which he failed to mention anything about the influence of big money or lobbyists in our political system.

His omission disappointed campaign finance reformers like Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, who said that the president has completely abandoned this important issue. “They have pretty much walked away from, certainly, the campaign finance issue,” Wertheimer said. “They’ve given no indications that they’re going to help deal with, without question, what is a fundamental problem for the country.”

Campaign finance reformers remember Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address, delivered just days after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said in 2010. (That was when Justice Alito could be seen shaking his head and mouthing “not true.”)

Obama went on to say: “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Now that the president no longer faces re-election, the issue seems to have faded among his priorities. But for Democrats and all Americans it should be a top concern. There are a number of groups working on amending the Constitution to limit the role of money in politics and elections (e.g. Move to Amend). If the American people don’t get behind these efforts in a major way, we will continue to be stuck with wealthy Americans and corporations calling the shots when it comes to governing this nation.  It is a warped system that has dragged America down economically, politically and morally, and cries out for a serious fix.

Right now we have government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy. The best way to repair this broken political system is to extricate the mammoth influence of big money from the political process. If Democrats fail to do so, this nation will remain on the fast path to plutocracy, drifting farther away from what we once recognized as democracy.

Also published at OpEdNews (Headline status) February 19, 2013
Posted in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, elections, finance, government, politics, Republican Party, Supreme Court | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

…And Rent Is $2

tumblr_mga1cjePPZ1r4ve55o1_400

Posted in Economics, inequality | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Chinese Soldiers in America-How Would We Feel?

“Imagine” was an independent Ron Paul commercial from the 2012 election. It packs a lot of punch and a lot of truth:

Posted in Afghanistan, foreign policy, government, Iraq, Iraq war, military, war | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Iceland Got It Right

From Al Jazeera English: 

Iceland President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson tells Al Jazeera’s Stephen Cole that Europe should let banks that are ran “irresponsibly” go bankrupt. Speaking at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Grimsson also held his country as a model of economic recovery after its near-collapse four years ago. “We didn’t follow the traditional prevailing orthodoxies. And the end result four years later is that Iceland is enjoying progress and recovery.”

Posted in Economics, economy, finance, inequality, politics, scandals | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Only American Citizens Have Rights

Desmond Tutu wrote a letter to the editor in the New York Times, published Wednesday, criticizing the U.S. drone killing policy and the hypocrisy of considering a special court for American citizens while exempting judicial review of drone killings for others:

photo

To the Editor:

I am deeply, deeply disturbed at the suggestion in “A Court to Vet Kill Lists” (news analysis, front page, Feb. 9) that possible judicial review of President Obama’s decisions to approve the targeted killing of suspected terrorists might be limited to the killings of American citizens.

Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours? That President Obama can sign off on a decision to kill us with less worry about judicial scrutiny than if the target is an American? Would your Supreme Court really want to tell humankind that we, like the slave Dred Scott in the 19th century, are not as human as you are? I cannot believe it.

I used to say of apartheid that it dehumanized its perpetrators as much as, if not more than, its victims. Your response as a society to Osama bin Laden and his followers threatens to undermine your moral standards and your humanity.

DESMOND M. TUTU
Aboard MV Explorer, near Hong Kong Feb. 11, 2013

The writer, winner of the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, is archbishop emeritus of Cape Town.

 

Posted in Barack Obama, foreign policy, military, Terrorism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

American Soldiers: Heroes or Victims?

By Arlen Grossman/ The Big Picture Report

“There was never a good war, or a bad peace.” — Benjamin Franklin

Clint Romesha was awarded the Medal of Honor Monday by President Obama, but with “mixed emotions” as he thought about his fallen American comrades in Afghanistan. As is typical in these situations, Romesha was repeatedly described as a “hero.” Sorry, I don’t buy it.

That same day there was a memorial service for legendary Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, apparently killed by a mentally unbalanced fellow soldier he was trying to help. Kyle was honored as the military’s deadliest sniper, having killed at least 160 enemy soldiers in Iraq. The term “hero” was freely used for this extraordinary marksman. In this case, too, I don’t buy it.

I cannot accept the concept of “heroes” in combat. I cringe whenever soldiers are glorified, no matter the circumstances. In the words of Harry Patch, the last surviving  soldier of WWI, “War is organized murder, and nothing else.” There is nothing heroic about killing for your country, especially since World War II, our last legally declared war. Soldiers are victims for sure, but not heroes. There is nothing glorious about killing in wartime. War is senseless, stupid, and as William Tecumseh Sherman described it, “hell.”

I don’t doubt that Romesha and Kyle were exceptional and brave soldiers, and probably decent human beings.  But no soldier should be considered a hero when his accomplishments involve killing  “enemy combatants” who, when you come right down to it,  are defending their country from foreign attackers (Americans) in our country’s lastest destructive, unnecessary, and bogus war/occupation.

wars

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu

Let’s not perpetuate the myth that our soldiers are defending American soil or preserving our freedoms. Again, you have to go back to WWII for that. However brave those two decorated men and thousands of other American soldiers were, the fact that they were invading foreign countries primarily for the benefit of oil companies and other multinational corporations does not earn them the right to be called “heroes.” As former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan admitted in his memoir The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

You can make a case that invading Afghanistan was justified, as they were harboring the al-Qaeda that planned 9/11. But we quickly took care of al-Qaeda, and replaced the Taliban government. Does anybody know a good reason why we’ve been occupying that sorry country for the last decade? Afghanistan and Iraq are just two of many examples of wasted lives and bodies in American wars, interventions, and occupations since the Second World War.

And unfortunately, referring to soldiers as heroes only perpetuates what is indefensible, namely the glorification of war, the most ignoble of all human enterprises. When soldiers are portrayed as warriors to be honored and admired, it encourages recruitment of future soldiers and the waging of future unnecessary armed conflict. I prefer the old saying: “suppose they gave a war and nobody came.” That would be a dream and a goal worth pursuing. Exalting the young men and women going overseas and risking their lives, limbs, and minds to kill foreigners in our name for the benefit of America’s corporate economic interests is dangerous and immoral.

The soldiers involved in our overseas conflicts today– no matter their fate, no matter how brave and able–are really just victims, never heroes. They shouldn’t be going around the world helping build an empire. They should be coming home.

Also published at OpEdNews, February 16, 2013
Posted in Afghanistan, foreign policy, Iraq, Iraq war, media, military, war | Tagged , , , , , , | 11 Comments

My Religion Is Better Than Yours

Religion 0173 (1)

BPR Quote of the Day:

“Man is a religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal with the true religion – several of them. He is the only animal who loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He had made a graveyard of the globe in doing his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to heaven and happiness.” 

                          Mark Twain

Posted in philosophy, Quotations, religion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

It’s Not Like Guns Are Dangerous, Right?

523262_529581787062239_916431629_n

Posted in gun control, law, political poster, poster | Tagged | 4 Comments