Sadness at Election Madness
But I can't stand campaign spam. Two recent articles by Al Giordano about Colombia, one about the Uribe regime reaching pariah status and the other about Colombia spending aid money on lobbying, would have been perfect if they had only concentrated on the story hooks instead of the candidates. The U.S. is not a democracy. Our Constitution does not allow us to vote directly for President and Vice-President. We see the names on the ballots and think we're voting for the candidates, but we're not. Only the Electors of the Electoral College can do that, and their names are not on the ballots. Often they are appointed by the political parties rather than elected. And even then, Congress and the Supreme Court have the final say in who will take office, not the voters.
Of course all the candidates are preselected from a narrow range of pro-war military-industrial complex loyalists. By bankrolling them and dictating how much and what type of media coverage they get, it is the defense industry that determines how popular they appear to be, so as to provide cover for rigged vote-counting. More than 80% of U.S. votes, whether cast on paper or on machines, whether cast at the polls or mailed in, are counted secretly inside easily hacked computerized central tabulators and there is no way to verify that votes were counted accurately. Even if there was, there is no way to unseat an unelected candidate once they've been sworn into office.
Because we do not have the right to directly elect or to directly impeach or recall government officials, because we do not have proportional representation or publicly funded elections, and because it is Congress and the Supreme Court who have the final say, not the electorate, elections in the U.S. are nothing but a farce.
In February or March of 2009, once the new administration (same as the old administration) has settled in and people wake up and begin to realize that nothing has changed, I hope I'll be able to link to NarcoNews articles once again.
Oh yes, and no matter who is "elected," their first order of business will be to issue blanket pardons to anyone in the Bush administration who wants or needs one. It is a precedent and a professional courtesy. A president never knows if they might need a similar courtesy from their successor, so it is always seen to.
And for now, to those who have succumbed to the general delirium, mass hysteria, mob psychosis, and total insanity of election season, and truly believe that one of the war-criminal candidates selected by the military-industrial complex is here to save us all, I can only hope that you live as long as I have, so that you can develop some immunity to this seasonal malady.
Email this page
On "Activist" Calls for Censorship
Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by Al GiordanoYou are free not to link to or publicize my stories or, if you wish, any other story on Narco News simply because you don't like mine! That kind of lame attempt at "activist-style blackmail" doesn't work here. If you think I'm going to change what I write, worried that one (or more!) of our hundreds of thousands of readers might stop promoting us, hey, thems the breaks. I didn't stop writing about narco-bankers just because they sued me. Think I'm going to lose sleep over whether someone links to my work or not?
I find your tirade to be nothing less than a call for censorship. It would be no different if you were a donor of tens of thousands of dollars to this project and tried to tell me what to report and what not to report. I'd tell that person to keep his money, just as I tell you to keep your damn links! Censorship is the enemy here, not speech.
What do you suggest? That Narco News just not report anything having to do with candidates for political office? Does that include Venezuela? Bolivia? Mexico? Brazil? Or just the United States? Does it include some countries but not others? If so, who decides? You?
The US Colombia free trade agreement would be sneaking toward passage right now in the US Congress had it not become, suddenly, a scandal in the US presidential campaign. That it has become so suddenly controversial as part of the story that is on the front page of every newspaper, on the evening network news, (and all over the Internet, by the way), that finally members of the US Congress that would have likely voted for it are having to think again. They see that the man arguably the most powerful political consultant in the United States has just lost two lucrative contracts - one with the government of Colombia, the other with the Clinton campaign - because he worked to pass that treaty.
You may not see how that brings the story to millions more eyes and ears, but as the one among the two of us that's done the heavy lifting all these years to report the news from Latin America, and seen many an important story whither - however well the facts were reported, however important the story was - because North Americans did not pay attention to it and did not essentially care what happened south of the border.
But now that it affects what they care about - tens of millions of them - which is the US presidential election, they're interested, and many are outraged.
If you don't want to read about it, don't. Unsubscribe from our mailing list. Stop reading anything with my byline. Be my guest. But don't suggest that I should shut up or censor reporting on what I view as urgent and vital. It makes you no different than anyone else that has ever tried to urge censorship anywhere. It never worked when anyone else tried it here. What in hell makes you think your tantrum is going to work here?
Sorry, Al, but I think you misunderstood.
Submitted on April 9th, 2008 by Mark SmithI wasn't trying to censor or blackmail. And I have nothing but admiration for the yeoman work you continue to do.
My problem, and it is my problem, not yours, is that I've had it with electoral politics in the U.S. After several years as an election reform activist, I finally realized that we are not a democracy, our votes do not count, and we have no way to force our government officials to represent us.
I'm retired and I pass the time by linking stories on Care2. I'm usually their top story finder in the U.S. politics and government category, but I rely on only a small number of websites for news, primarily NarcoNews, Citizens for Legitimate Government, BradBlog, OpEdNews, and RawStory. The rest of the stories I post come from mailing lists that I subscribe to.
Lately, of course, Care2, like most other websites, has been saturated with what I call campaign spam. Political operatives can save a lot of money by posting things about their candidates online instead of paying for ads.
Your stories are relevant and important. I read them and appreciate them. I know that they are essential and that you cover things that the mainstream media will not. But I simply will not link to stories that might appear to put me in the position of appearing to favor one war criminal candidate over another, even if they really are a tad less evil than the others.
I only posted because it really hurt me not to be able to link your stories. And while I'm sure that you believe that the recent scandal might influence how Congress votes on the Colombian Free Trade deal, I've found that they usually vote their party or their pocketbook and pay no attention to public pressure. Thanks to secret vote counting on rigged central tabulators, they don't have to.
I apologize for my "tantrum." I support your courage in writing what you believe.
If you want me to unsubscribe it will make me even sadder, but I don't want to be where I'm not wanted. I've been banned from many websites for writing about election fraud because people are afraid that it would suppress voter turnout if the truth were known. And they're right. If people really understood that voters don't have the final say in our elections and that there is no way to know if our votes are counted, they might not vote.
I know I certainly won't.
Respect
Submitted on April 9th, 2008 by Al GiordanoBy saying that you're welcome to unsubscribe, I wasn't saying that you should unsubscribe or that you're not welcome here. Even your criticism is published uncensored. In four years of the Narcosphere, nobody has been banned because of the content of their comments or diaries. That's what the Narcosphere is about. You're also welcome to continue receiving our alerts. I'm just saying its your choice, since you seemed so offended by some of the recent content.
Even if the US electoral system is 100 percent locked down and fixed, as you say, I would posit that it's coughing up a pretty interesting November election. In my analysis, the contest that the powers-behind-the-throne wanted was Romney v. Clinton or Giuliani v. Clinton, a win-win for them in either case. Instead, we're likely to see two less robotic, more human, candidates: one quite old and the other quite young, both of whom have been smart and compassionate about reforming immigration laws and not demonizing Mexican-Americans, for starters, which is a big story on our beat, obviously.
Are you the same Mark Smith from Massachusetts that I know from years ago? Because that guy had his own foray into electoral politics, as I recall.
best,
Al
Never lived in Massachusetts.
Submitted on April 9th, 2008 by Mark SmithNow let's see if I can respond to your comments, Al. You wrote:
"Even if the US electoral system is 100 percent locked down and fixed, as you say, I would posit that it's coughing up a pretty interesting November election."
If it is 100% locked down, then the "interesting" part is just a dog and pony show.
Al: "In my analysis, the contest that the powers-behind-the-throne wanted was Romney v. Clinton or Giuliani v. Clinton, a win-win for them in either case."
As I see it, the powers-behind-the-throne are the military industrial complex, the big multinational corporations, and the Rothschild/Rockefeller policy groups. I believe that they control the elections by bankrolling candidates they know to be loyal or can control, and by dictating how much and what type of media coverage the candidates get. This provides cover for the rigged elections.
Al: "Instead, we're likely to see two less robotic, more human, candidates: one quite old and the other quite young, both of whom have been smart and compassionate about reforming immigration laws and not demonizing Mexican-Americans, for starters, which is a big story on our beat, obviously."
Yes, that does appear to be a big story. But of course if they don't have the support of their political parties, a majority of Congress, and the Supreme Court, they're not likely to accomplish much.
To digress for a moment, you might (or might not) find this amusing. Prior to the primaries a lot of people were supporting Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. I said they were shills, wouldn't get their parties' nominations, wouldn't run as independents, and would throw their support to their party's nominee. People kept telling me I was wrong, and that Kucinich and Paul were sincere. I explained that because CONgress is the biggest con game in the world with trillions of dollars at stake, their shills are the best in the business and have to appear convincingly sincere, honest, trustworthy, etc. Of course they'll withhold their endorsements until late in the game, but they're party loyalists and will not split their party's vote. Their job is to deliver the suckers (or marks, a word I prefer less, obviously) and that's what they'll do.
Al, if the powers that be don't want a candidate, they can kill their candidacy easily by simply withholding donations, calling in political favors, slanting media coverage, and a few dirty tricks when necessary. These powers have been rigging and interfering with elections in other countries for decades and they know their business.
When you write about elections in Venezuela, Bolivia, Mexico, or Brazil, do you limit yourself to writing about the candidates or do you also include evidence of U.S. interference and/or election fraud?
McCain was a POW and opposed torture as U.S. policy until somebody twisted his arm -- and they probably twisted his bad arm or whichever one would hurt the most. We know all about the Clintons and GATT and NAFTA -- they're bad news any way you look at it. And Obama threw his support to his mentor, Joe Lieberman, in 2006, and has not come out in favor of impeachment or of immediately ending the crimes against humanity in Afghanistan or Iraq. He undoubtedly appears to be less evil than the other two, but at my age, 68, I've learned that appearances can be deceiving.
Because our Constitution gave us a republic, often misleadingly referred to as a "representative democracy," rather than a direct or participatory (real) democracy, we not only don't have the final say in who is "elected," we also have no way to hold them accountable once they take office. Heckuva way to run a country, eh?
An old election joke
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by Mark SmithThe Senator
While walking down the street one day a U.S. senator is tragically hit by a truck and killed.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the man.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now, the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."