Begin forwarded message:
> The Stolen Election of 2004 by Michael Parenti > > The 2004 presidential contest between Democratic > challenger Senator John > Kerry and the Republican incumbent, President Bush > Jr., amounted to > another stolen election. This has been well documented > by such > investigators as Rep. John Conyers, Mark Crispin > Miller, Bob Fitrakis, > Harvey Wasserman, Bev Harris, and others. Here is an > overview of what > they have reported, along with observations of my own. > > Some 105 million citizens voted in 2000, but in 2004 > the turnout climbed > to at least 122 million. Pre-election surveys > indicated that among the > record 16.8 million new voters Kerry was a heavy > favorite, a fact that > went largely unreported by the press. In addition, > there were about two > million progressives who had voted for Ralph Nader in > 2000 who switched > to Kerry in 2004. > > Yet the official 2004 tallies showed Bush with 62 > million votes, about > 11.6 million more than he got in 2000. Meanwhile Kerry > showed only eight > million more votes than Gore received in 2000. To have > achieved his > remarkable 2004 tally, Bush would needed to have kept > all his 50.4 > million from 2000, plus a majority of the new voters, > plus a large share > of the very liberal Nader defectors. > > Nothing in the campaign and in the opinion polls > suggest such a mass > crossover. The numbers simply do not add up. > > In key states like Ohio, the Democrats achieved > immense success at > registering new voters, outdoing the Republicans by as > much as five to > one. Moreover the Democratic party was unusually > united around its > candidate—or certainly against the incumbent > president. In contrast, > prominent elements within the GOP displayed open > disaffection, publicly > voicing serious misgivings about the Bush > administration’s huge budget > deficits, reckless foreign policy, theocratic > tendencies, and threats to > individual liberties. > > Sixty newspapers that had endorsed Bush in 2000 > refused to do so in > 2004; forty of them endorsed Kerry. > > All through election day 2004, exit polls showed Kerry > ahead by 53 to 47 > percent, giving him a nationwide edge of about 1.5 > million votes, and a > solid victory in the electoral college. Yet strangely > enough, the > official tally gave Bush the election. Here are some > examples of how the > GOP “victory” was secured. > > ---In some places large numbers of Democratic > registration forms > disappeared, along with absentee ballots and > provisional ballots. > Sometimes absentee ballots were mailed out to voters > just before > election day, too late to be returned on time, or they > were never mailed > at all. > > ---Overseas ballots normally reliably distributed by > the State > Department were for some reason distributed by the > Pentagon in 2004. > Nearly half of the six million American voters living > abroad---a > noticeable number of whom formed anti-Bush > organizations---never > received their ballots or got them too late to vote. > Military personnel, > usually more inclined toward supporting the president, > encountered no > such problems with their overseas ballots. > > ---Voter Outreach of America, a company funded by the > Republican > National Committee, collected thousands of voter > registration forms in > Nevada, promising to turn them in to public officials, > but then > systematically destroyed the ones belonging to > Democrats. > > --- Tens of thousands of Democratic voters were > stricken from the rolls > in several states because of “felonies” never > committed, or committed by > someone else, or for no given reason. Registration > books in Democratic > precincts were frequently out-of-date or incomplete. > > ---Democratic precincts---enjoying record > turnouts---were deprived of > sufficient numbers of polling stations and voting > machines, and many of > the machines they had kept breaking down. After > waiting long hours many > people went home without voting. Pro-Bush precincts > almost always had > enough voting machines, all working well to make > voting quick and > convenient. > > ---A similar pattern was observed with student > populations in several > states: students at conservative Christian colleges > had little or no > wait at the polls, while students from liberal arts > colleges were forced > to line up for as long as ten hours, causing many to > give up. > > ---In Lucas County, Ohio, one polling place never > opened; the voting > machines were locked in an office and no one could > find the key. In > Hamilton County many absentee voters could not cast a > Democratic vote > for president because John Kerry’s name had been > “accidentally” removed > when Ralph Nader was taken off the ballot. > > ---A polling station in a conservative evangelical > church in Miami > County, Ohio, recorded an impossibly high turnout of > 98 percent, while a > polling place in Democratic inner-city Cleveland > recorded an impossibly > low turnout of 7 percent. > > ---Latino, Native American, and African American > voters in New Mexico > who favored Kerry by two to one were five times more > likely to have > their ballots spoiled and discarded in districts > supervised by > Republican election officials. Many were given > provisional ballots that > subsequently were never counted. In these same > Democratic areas Bush > “won” an astonishing 68 to 31 percent upset victory. > One Republican > judge in New Mexico discarded hundreds of provisional > ballots cast for > Kerry, accepting only those that were for Bush. > > ---Cadres of rightwing activists, many of them > religious > fundamentalists, were financed by the Republican > Party. Deployed to key > Democratic precincts, they handed out flyers warning > that voters who had > unpaid parking tickets, an arrest record, or owed > child support would be > arrested at the polls---all untrue. They went door to > door offering to > “deliver” absentee ballots to the proper office, and > announcing that > Republicans were to vote on Tuesday (election day) and > Democrats on > Wednesday. > > ---Democratic poll watchers in Ohio, Arizona, and > other states, who > tried to monitor election night vote counting, were > menaced and shut out > by squads of GOP toughs. In Warren County, Ohio, > immediately after the > polls closed Republican officials announced a > “terrorist attack” alert, > and ordered the press to leave. They then moved all > ballots to a > warehouse where the counting was conducted in secret, > producing an > amazingly high tally for Bush, some 14,000 more votes > than he had > received in 2000. It wasn’t the terrorists who > attacked Warren County. > > ---Bush did remarkably well with phantom populations. > The number of his > votes in Perry and Cuyahoga counties in Ohio, exceeded > the number of > registered voters, creating turnout rates as high as > 124 percent. In > Miami County nearly 19,000 additional votes eerily > appeared in Bush’s > column after all precincts had reported. In a small > conservative > suburban precinct of Columbus, where only 638 people > were registered, > the touchscreen machines tallied 4,258 votes for Bush. > > ---In almost half of New Mexico’s counties, more votes > were reported > than were recorded as being cast, and the tallies were > consistently in > Bush’s favor. These ghostly results were dismissed by > New Mexico’s > Republican Secretary of State as an “administrative > lapse.” > > Exit polls showed Kerry solidly ahead of Bush in both > the popular vote > and the electoral college. Exit polls are an > exceptionally accurate > measure of elections. In the last three elections in > Germany, for > example, exit polls were never off by more than > three-tenths of one > percent. > > Unlike ordinary opinion polls, the exit sample is > drawn from people who > have actually just voted. It rules out those who say > they will vote but > never make it to the polls, those who cannot be > sampled because they > have no telephone or otherwise cannot be reached at > home, those who are > undecided or who change their minds about whom to > support, and those who > are turned away at the polls for one reason or > another. > > Exit polls have come to be considered so reliable that > international > organizations use them to validate election results in > countries around > the world. > > Republicans argued that in 2004 the exit polls were > inaccurate because > they were taken only in the morning when Kerry voters > came out in > greater numbers. (Apparently Bush voters sleep late.) > In fact, the > polling was done at random intervals all through the > day, and the > evening results were as much favoring Kerry as the > early results. > > It was also argued that pollsters focused more on > women (who favored > Kerry) than men, or maybe large numbers of grumpy > Republicans were less > inclined than cheery Democrats to talk to pollsters. > No evidence was put > forth to substantiate these fanciful speculations. > > Most revealing, the discrepancies between exit polls > and official > tallies were never random but worked to Bush’s > advantage in ten of > eleven swing states that were too close to call, > sometimes by as much as > 9.5 percent as in New Hampshire, an unheard of margin > of error for an > exit poll. In Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico, and Iowa exit > polls registered > solid victories for Kerry, yet the official tally in > each case went to > Bush, a mystifying outcome. > > In states that were not hotly contested the exit polls > proved quite > accurate. Thus exit polls in Utah predicted a Bush > victory of 70.8 to > 26.4 percent; the actual result was 71.1 to 26.4 > percent. In Missouri, > where the exit polls predicted a Bush victory of 54 to > 46 percent, the > final result was 53 to 46 percent. > > One explanation for the strange anomalies in vote > tallies was found in > the widespread use of touchscreen electronic voting > machines. These > machines produced results that consistently favored > Bush over Kerry, > often in chillingly consistent contradiction to exit > polls. > > In 2003 more than 900 computer professionals had > signed a petition > urging that all touchscreen systems include a > verifiable audit trail. > Touchscreen voting machines can be easily programmed > to go dead on > election day or throw votes to the wrong candidate or > make votes > disappear while leaving the impression that everything > is working fine. > > A tiny number of operatives can easily access the > entire computer > network through one machine and thereby change votes > at will. The > touchscreen machines use trade secret code, and are > tested, reviewed, > and certified in complete secrecy. Verified counts are > impossible > because the machines leave no reliable paper trail. > > Since the introduction of touchscreen voting, > mysterious congressional > election results have been increasing. In 2000 and > 2002, Senate and > House contests and state legislative races in North > Carolina, Nebraska, > Alabama, Minnesota, Colorado, and elsewhere produced > dramatic and > puzzling upsets, always at the expense of Democrats > who were ahead in > the polls. > > In some counties in Texas, Virginia, and Ohio, voters > who pressed the > Democrat’s name found that the Republican candidate > was chosen. In > Cormal County, Texas, three GOP candidates won by > exactly 18,181 votes > apiece, a near statistical impossibility. > > All of Georgia’s voters used Diebold touchscreen > machines in 2002, and > Georgia’s incumbent Democratic governor and incumbent > Democratic > senator, who were both well ahead in the polls just > before the election, > lost in amazing double-digit voting shifts. > > This may be the most telling datum of all: In New > Mexico in 2004 Kerry > lost all precincts equipped with touchscreen machines, > irrespective of > income levels, ethnicity, and past voting patterns. > The only thing that > consistently correlated with his defeat in those > precincts was the > presence of the touchscreen machine itself. > > In Florida Bush registered inexplicably sharp jumps in > his vote > (compared to 2000) in counties that used touchscreen > machines. > > Companies like Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S that market > the touchscreen > machines are owned by militant supporters of the > Republican party. These > companies have consistently refused to implement a > paper-trail to dispel > suspicions and give instant validation to the results > of electronic > voting. They prefer to keep things secret, claiming > proprietary rights, > a claim that has been backed in court. > > Election officials are not allowed to evaluate the > secret software. > Apparently corporate trade secrets are more important > than voting > rights. In effect, corporations have privatized the > electoral system, > leaving it easily susceptible to fixed outcomes. Given > this situation, > it is not likely that the GOP will lose control of > Congress come > November 2006. The two-party monopoly threatens to > become an even worse > one-party tyranny. > ___________________ > Michael Parenti's recent books include The > Assassination of Julius > Caesar (New Press), Superpatriotism (City Lights), and > The Culture > Struggle (Seven Stories Press). For more information > visit: > www.michaelparenti.org. > > > > --------------------------------- > Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. > Just radically better. > > --0-1170487396-1152628575=:51827 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > <html><body> > > > The Stolen Election of 2004 by Michael Parenti<BR><BR>The 2004 > presidential contest between Democratic <BR>challenger Senator John > <BR>Kerry and the Republican incumbent, President Bush <BR>Jr., > amounted to <BR>another stolen election. This has been well > documented <BR>by such <BR>investigators as Rep. John Conyers, Mark > Crispin <BR>Miller, Bob Fitrakis, <BR>Harvey Wasserman, Bev Harris, > and others. Here is an <BR>overview of what <BR>they have reported, > along with observations of my own.<BR><BR>Some 105 million citizens > voted in 2000, but in 2004 <BR>the turnout climbed <BR>to at least > 122 million. Pre-election surveys <BR>indicated that among the > <BR>record 16.8 million new voters Kerry was a heavy <BR>favorite, > a fact that <BR>went largely unreported by the press. In addition, > <BR>there were about two <BR>million progressives who had voted for > Ralph Nader in <BR>2000 who switched <BR>to Kerry in > 2004.<BR><BR>Yet the official 2004 tallies showed Bush with 62 > <BR>million > votes, about <BR>11.6 million more than he got in 2000. Meanwhile > Kerry <BR>showed only eight <BR>million more votes than Gore > received in 2000. To have <BR>achieved his <BR>remarkable 2004 > tally, Bush would needed to have kept <BR>all his 50.4 <BR>million > from 2000, plus a majority of the new voters, <BR>plus a large > share <BR>of the very liberal Nader defectors.<BR><BR>Nothing in > the campaign and in the opinion polls <BR>suggest such a mass > <BR>crossover. The numbers simply do not add up.<BR><BR>In key > states like Ohio, the Democrats achieved <BR>immense success at > <BR>registering new voters, outdoing the Republicans by as <BR>much > as five to <BR>one. Moreover the Democratic party was unusually > <BR>united around its <BR>candidate—or certainly against the > incumbent <BR>president. In contrast, <BR>prominent elements within > the GOP displayed open <BR>disaffection, publicly <BR>voicing > serious misgivings about the Bush <BR>administration’s huge budget > <BR>deficits, reckless > foreign policy, theocratic <BR>tendencies, and threats to > <BR>individual liberties.<BR><BR>Sixty newspapers that had endorsed > Bush in 2000 <BR>refused to do so in <BR>2004; forty of them > endorsed Kerry.<BR><BR>All through election day 2004, exit polls > showed Kerry <BR>ahead by 53 to 47 <BR>percent, giving him a > nationwide edge of about 1.5 <BR>million votes, and a <BR>solid > victory in the electoral college. Yet strangely <BR>enough, the > <BR>official tally gave Bush the election. Here are some > <BR>examples of how the <BR>GOP “victory” was secured.<BR><BR>---In > some places large numbers of Democratic <BR>registration forms > <BR>disappeared, along with absentee ballots and <BR>provisional > ballots. <BR>Sometimes absentee ballots were mailed out to voters > <BR>just before <BR>election day, too late to be returned on time, > or they <BR>were never mailed <BR>at all.<BR><BR>---Overseas > ballots normally reliably distributed by <BR>the State > <BR>Department were for some reason > distributed by the <BR>Pentagon in 2004. <BR>Nearly half of the > six million American voters living <BR>abroad---a <BR>noticeable > number of whom formed anti-Bush <BR>organizations---never > <BR>received their ballots or got them too late to vote. > <BR>Military personnel, <BR>usually more inclined toward supporting > the president, <BR>encountered no <BR>such problems with their > overseas ballots.<BR><BR>---Voter Outreach of America, a company > funded by the <BR>Republican <BR>National Committee, collected > thousands of voter <BR>registration forms in <BR>Nevada, promising > to turn them in to public officials, <BR>but then > <BR>systematically destroyed the ones belonging to > <BR>Democrats.<BR><BR>--- Tens of thousands of Democratic voters > were <BR>stricken from the rolls <BR>in several states because of > “felonies” never <BR>committed, or committed by <BR>someone else, > or for no given reason. Registration <BR>books in Democratic > <BR>precincts were frequently out-of-date or > incomplete.<BR><BR>---Democratic precincts---enjoying record > <BR>turnouts---were deprived of <BR>sufficient numbers of polling > stations and voting <BR>machines, and many of <BR>the machines they > had kept breaking down. After <BR>waiting long hours many > <BR>people went home without voting. Pro-Bush precincts <BR>almost > always had <BR>enough voting machines, all working well to make > <BR>voting quick and <BR>convenient.<BR><BR>---A similar pattern > was observed with student <BR>populations in several <BR>states: > students at conservative Christian colleges <BR>had little or no > <BR>wait at the polls, while students from liberal arts > <BR>colleges were forced <BR>to line up for as long as ten hours, > causing many to <BR>give up.<BR><BR>---In Lucas County, Ohio, one > polling place never <BR>opened; the voting <BR>machines were locked > in an office and no one could <BR>find the key. In <BR>Hamilton > County many absentee voters could not cast a <BR>Democratic vote > <BR>for president > because John Kerry’s name had been <BR>“accidentally” removed > <BR>when Ralph Nader was taken off the ballot.<BR><BR>---A polling > station in a conservative evangelical <BR>church in Miami > <BR>County, Ohio, recorded an impossibly high turnout of <BR>98 > percent, while a <BR>polling place in Democratic inner-city > Cleveland <BR>recorded an impossibly <BR>low turnout of 7 > percent.<BR><BR>---Latino, Native American, and African American > <BR>voters in New Mexico <BR>who favored Kerry by two to one were > five times more <BR>likely to have <BR>their ballots spoiled and > discarded in districts <BR>supervised by <BR>Republican election > officials. Many were given <BR>provisional ballots that > <BR>subsequently were never counted. In these same <BR>Democratic > areas Bush <BR>“won” an astonishing 68 to 31 percent upset victory. > <BR>One Republican <BR>judge in New Mexico discarded hundreds of > provisional <BR>ballots cast for <BR>Kerry, accepting only those > that were for Bush.<BR><BR>---Cadres > of rightwing activists, many of them <BR>religious > <BR>fundamentalists, were financed by the Republican <BR>Party. > Deployed to key <BR>Democratic precincts, they handed out flyers > warning <BR>that voters who had <BR>unpaid parking tickets, an > arrest record, or owed <BR>child support would be <BR>arrested at > the polls---all untrue. They went door to <BR>door offering to > <BR>“deliver” absentee ballots to the proper office, and > <BR>announcing that <BR>Republicans were to vote on Tuesday > (election day) and <BR>Democrats on <BR>Wednesday.<BR><BR>--- > Democratic poll watchers in Ohio, Arizona, and <BR>other states, > who <BR>tried to monitor election night vote counting, were > <BR>menaced and shut out <BR>by squads of GOP toughs. In Warren > County, Ohio, <BR>immediately after the <BR>polls closed Republican > officials announced a <BR>“terrorist attack” alert, <BR>and ordered > the press to leave. They then moved all <BR>ballots to a > <BR>warehouse where the counting was conducted in > secret, <BR>producing an <BR>amazingly high tally for Bush, some > 14,000 more votes <BR>than he had <BR>received in 2000. It wasn’t > the terrorists who <BR>attacked Warren County.<BR><BR>---Bush did > remarkably well with phantom populations. <BR>The number of his > <BR>votes in Perry and Cuyahoga counties in Ohio, exceeded <BR>the > number of <BR>registered voters, creating turnout rates as high as > <BR>124 percent. In <BR>Miami County nearly 19,000 additional votes > eerily <BR>appeared in Bush’s <BR>column after all precincts had > reported. In a small <BR>conservative <BR>suburban precinct of > Columbus, where only 638 people <BR>were registered, <BR>the > touchscreen machines tallied 4,258 votes for Bush.<BR><BR>---In > almost half of New Mexico’s counties, more votes <BR>were reported > <BR>than were recorded as being cast, and the tallies were > <BR>consistently in <BR>Bush’s favor. These ghostly results were > dismissed by <BR>New Mexico’s <BR>Republican Secretary of State as an > “administrative <BR>lapse.”<BR><BR>Exit polls showed Kerry solidly > ahead of Bush in both <BR>the popular vote <BR>and the electoral > college. Exit polls are an <BR>exceptionally accurate <BR>measure > of elections. In the last three elections in <BR>Germany, for > <BR>example, exit polls were never off by more than <BR>three- > tenths of one <BR>percent.<BR><BR>Unlike ordinary opinion polls, > the exit sample is <BR>drawn from people who <BR>have actually just > voted. It rules out those who say <BR>they will vote but <BR>never > make it to the polls, those who cannot be <BR>sampled because they > <BR>have no telephone or otherwise cannot be reached at <BR>home, > those who are <BR>undecided or who change their minds about whom to > <BR>support, and those who <BR>are turned away at the polls for one > reason or <BR>another.<BR><BR>Exit polls have come to be considered > so reliable that <BR>international <BR>organizations use them to > validate election results in <BR>countries around <BR>the > world.<BR><BR>Republicans argued that in 2004 the exit polls were > <BR>inaccurate because <BR>they were taken only in the morning when > Kerry voters <BR>came out in <BR>greater numbers. (Apparently Bush > voters sleep late.) <BR>In fact, the <BR>polling was done at random > intervals all through the <BR>day, and the <BR>evening results were > as much favoring Kerry as the <BR>early results.<BR><BR>It was also > argued that pollsters focused more on <BR>women (who favored > <BR>Kerry) than men, or maybe large numbers of grumpy > <BR>Republicans were less <BR>inclined than cheery Democrats to > talk to pollsters. <BR>No evidence was put <BR>forth to > substantiate these fanciful speculations.<BR><BR>Most revealing, > the discrepancies between exit polls <BR>and official <BR>tallies > were never random but worked to Bush’s <BR>advantage in ten of > <BR>eleven swing states that were too close to call, <BR>sometimes > by as much as <BR>9.5 percent as in New Hampshire, an unheard of > margin <BR>of error > for an <BR>exit poll. In Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico, and Iowa exit > <BR>polls registered <BR>solid victories for Kerry, yet the > official tally in <BR>each case went to <BR>Bush, a mystifying > outcome.<BR><BR>In states that were not hotly contested the exit > polls <BR>proved quite <BR>accurate. Thus exit polls in Utah > predicted a Bush <BR>victory of 70.8 to <BR>26.4 percent; the > actual result was 71.1 to 26.4 <BR>percent. In Missouri, <BR>where > the exit polls predicted a Bush victory of 54 to <BR>46 percent, > the <BR>final result was 53 to 46 percent.<BR><BR>One explanation > for the strange anomalies in vote <BR>tallies was found in <BR>the > widespread use of touchscreen electronic voting <BR>machines. These > <BR>machines produced results that consistently favored <BR>Bush > over Kerry, <BR>often in chillingly consistent contradiction to > exit <BR>polls.<BR><BR>In 2003 more than 900 computer professionals > had <BR>signed a petition <BR>urging that all touchscreen systems > include a > <BR>verifiable audit trail. <BR>Touchscreen voting machines can be > easily programmed <BR>to go dead on <BR>election day or throw votes > to the wrong candidate or <BR>make votes <BR>disappear while > leaving the impression that everything <BR>is working > fine.<BR><BR>A tiny number of operatives can easily access the > <BR>entire computer <BR>network through one machine and thereby > change votes <BR>at will. The <BR>touchscreen machines use trade > secret code, and are <BR>tested, reviewed, <BR>and certified in > complete secrecy. Verified counts are <BR>impossible <BR>because > the machines leave no reliable paper trail.<BR><BR>Since the > introduction of touchscreen voting, <BR>mysterious congressional > <BR>election results have been increasing. In 2000 and <BR>2002, > Senate and <BR>House contests and state legislative races in North > <BR>Carolina, Nebraska, <BR>Alabama, Minnesota, Colorado, and > elsewhere produced <BR>dramatic and <BR>puzzling upsets, always at > the expense of Democrats > <BR>who were ahead in <BR>the polls.<BR><BR>In some counties in > Texas, Virginia, and Ohio, voters <BR>who pressed the > <BR>Democrat’s name found that the Republican candidate <BR>was > chosen. In <BR>Cormal County, Texas, three GOP candidates won by > <BR>exactly 18,181 votes <BR>apiece, a near statistical > impossibility.<BR><BR>All of Georgia’s voters used Diebold > touchscreen <BR>machines in 2002, and <BR>Georgia’s incumbent > Democratic governor and incumbent <BR>Democratic <BR>senator, who > were both well ahead in the polls just <BR>before the election, > <BR>lost in amazing double-digit voting shifts.<BR><BR>This may be > the most telling datum of all: In New <BR>Mexico in 2004 Kerry > <BR>lost all precincts equipped with touchscreen machines, > <BR>irrespective of <BR>income levels, ethnicity, and past voting > patterns. <BR>The only thing that <BR>consistently correlated with > his defeat in those <BR>precincts was the <BR>presence of the > touchscreen machine itself.<BR><BR>In Florida > Bush registered inexplicably sharp jumps in <BR>his vote <BR> > (compared to 2000) in counties that used touchscreen > <BR>machines.<BR><BR>Companies like Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S > that market <BR>the touchscreen <BR>machines are owned by militant > supporters of the <BR>Republican party. These <BR>companies have > consistently refused to implement a <BR>paper-trail to dispel > <BR>suspicions and give instant validation to the results <BR>of > electronic <BR>voting. They prefer to keep things secret, claiming > <BR>proprietary rights, <BR>a claim that has been backed in > court.<BR><BR>Election officials are not allowed to evaluate the > <BR>secret software. <BR>Apparently corporate trade secrets are > more important <BR>than voting <BR>rights. In effect, corporations > have privatized the <BR>electoral system, <BR>leaving it easily > susceptible to fixed outcomes. Given <BR>this situation, <BR>it is > not likely that the GOP will lose control of <BR>Congress come > <BR>November 2006. The > two-party monopoly threatens to <BR>become an even worse <BR>one- > party tyranny.<BR>___________________<BR>Michael Parenti's recent > books include The <BR>Assassination of Julius <BR>Caesar (New > Press), Superpatriotism (City Lights), and <BR>The Culture > <BR>Struggle (Seven Stories Press). For more information <BR>visit: > <BR>www.michaelparenti.org.<BR><BR><p>  > > <hr size=1>Sneak preview the <a href="http:// > us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40762/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview";> all-new > Yahoo.com</a>. It's not radically different. Just radically better. > > <span width="1" style="color: white;"/></span> > </body></html> > > --0-1170487396-1152628575=:51827-- ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/vseplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
