A Window of Opportunity

By Ernest Partridge
Created Dec 6 2006 - 9:23am

Who could have guessed it?

Sure enough, the pre-election polls indicated a likely Democratic victory in
the House. But the Senate? That victory was especially sweet, for being
unexpected.

Those of us who are convinced that the previous three elections were stolen
by means of paperless, "direct record electronic" (DRE) voting machines and
compilers, feared that the secret DRE codes would once again frustrate the
public will and keep both houses in control of the GOP.

DRE critics such as Brad Friedman (of "BradBlog" [1]) and Mark Crispin
Miller, [2] warned us to expect still more e-vote rigging, but further
suggested that "the fix" could be over-ridden by a "tsunami" of protest
votes against the GOP and Bushism. Turns out, they were right. The
Republican software geniuses at Diebold, ES&S, etc. underestimated the size
of the wave of public indignation. Just three or four percent vote shifting
in Virginia, Montana and Missouri seemed sufficient to keep those seats, and
thus the Senate, in GOP control. They were proven to be wrong. The House was
a much more difficult assignment:too many individual seats to "fix." [3]

My guess is that in a completely honest election, the Democrats would have
won as many as fifty seats in the House, instead of the twenty-nine that (at
last count) they have gained. The Democrats would have won Virginia, Montana
and Missouri, not "by a whisker," but by comfortable margins, and Senate
seats in Tennessee and Arizona might also have been added to the Democratic
total.

But never mind all that. The Democrats now have control of both houses of
the Congress, and with it the opportunity to halt the Bushevik insurgency in
its tracks and perhaps reverse it.

If the Democrats and their liberal and progressive supporters treat the
election as a battle won in an ongoing war, they may eventually prevail. If
they come to believe that with this election, they have won the war and thus
quit the fight, they will lose it. For we must never forget that the
Busheviks and their supporters still have the White House, the courts, and
the mainstream media in their corner.

The Democrats, for their part, have the Congress and, perhaps most
significantly, the accompanying power of oversight and investigation. And
the past election has demonstrated that there are limits to the ability of
the mainstream media to influence public opinion and political support. Most
significantly, the Busheviks are concealing crimes against the state and the
people [4] that are so onerous that their exposure and the convictions that
might follow could relegate the Republicans to several decades of minority
status.

If I were to place my bets on the Busheviks (plus the courts and MSM) vs. a
determined, disciplined and tactically astute Democratic Congress, my bet
would be with the Congress and the Democrats. But quite frankly, I have
serious doubts that we will have that kind of a Congress and Democratic
party. After all, when the Democrats briefly re-took control of the Senate
in May 2001, they didn't exactly come roaring out of the starting gate.
Instead, the following October, a majority of the Senate Democrats voted for
Bush's Iraq War Resolution, and all but one Democratic Senator (Russ
Feingold) voted for the USA Patriot Act.

Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi has announced that the primary objectives of
the new Congress will be a raising of the minimum wage, health care reform,
and tax reform. These are all commendable goals. But if these social reforms
are to endure and not be undone by a GOP resurgence in 2008, some more
fundamental issues must be addressed along with an exposure and prosecution
of the crimes of the past six years.

I would like to discuss three of these over-arching issues: restoration of
the Constitution, the assurance of electoral integrity, and oversight and
impeachment.

Restoration of the U.S. Constitution.

All federal officers and members of Congress take an oath to protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States. There can be little doubt that
Bush and his supporters in the administration and the Congress have violated
that oath. Read the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the
Constitution), and you will find that as many as six of those ten articles
have been directly and specifically violated by executive orders of the
President or by acts of the GOP Congress. In addition, the Military
Commissions Act has selectively abolished Habeas Corpus, which is specified
in the Constitution (Article One, Section Nine), and Bush, with his "signing
statements," has explicitly violated the Constitutional requirement that The
President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Article
Two, Section 3).

In effect, the Constitution has been nullified by the Bush administration
and its collaborators in the Congress. It must be restored promptly and
decisively by resolutions stating that the Congress recognizes the
Constitution, and not the will of the President, to be the supreme law of
the land. And the Congress must immediately pass legislation that nullifies
all sections of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, etc., and all
executive orders that violate the Constitution.

No doubt, Bush will veto such legislation, and Senate Republicans will
probably prevent an override of the vetoes. But if so, there will be victory
in the defeats: the American people then know, who is, and who is not,
attempting "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Then the fight will move on to the Federal Courts, and to the voters in
forthcoming elections.

So long as Bush retains his extraordinary and unconstitutional powers and
his claim to arbitrarily ignore acts of Congress, anything else that the
Congress might attempt may prove futile - if the President, at his own
discretion, chooses to make it so. Thus restoration of the Constitution must
be the highest priority of the 110th Congress.

Election Reform.

In my opening comments, I have assumed implicitly that fraud by means of
paperless "black box" e-voting machines was widespread in 2002, 2004, and
possibly 2000 (although in 2000, other methods of election fraud and
manipulation, such as purging of voting rolls, especially in Florida, were
decisive). There is also accumulating evidence that e-vote fraud,
registration purges and malicious misinformation were at work in 2006, but
they were not sufficient to overcome the "tsunami" of votes that put the
Democrats in power in both houses of Congress.

As I have argued repeatedly [5] the evidence of e-voting fraud [5] -
circumstantial, anecdotal, experimental, and most significantly,
statistical - is compelling, and should be conclusive to a critical
investigator. But not so, it seems, to the mainstream media, which has been
persistently silent about the issue of election fraud. The evidence should
also convince most Democrats and their liberal and progressive supporters.
Nonetheless, the "official" Democrats, along with with most of their
conspicuous supporters, still refuse to touch the issue.

Case in point: Soon after the election, Al Franken remarked on air that
"this proves that there was no election fraud, now or in previous
elections." Of course, it "proved" nothing of the kind.

Apparently, in his outstanding education at Harvard University, Franken
somehow failed to take a course in elementary statistics. For study after
study has proven that "chance" deviations in exit polls and official tallies
(almost all favoring the GOP) are one in several millions. In effect,
impossible, and therefore that some malicious mischief was certainly afoot.
(But this is not the place to go into all that. I have other matters to
discuss. For evidence, follow the links, above.)

So let's assume that in several identifiable races (e.g., Georgia in 2002,
Ohio in 2004, Florida 13th District in 2006, among hundreds of others),
elections were "stolen" through non-auditable paperless "direct record
electronic" (DRE) machines and the secret software that tallies the votes.

This has been a remarkably successful crime-wave - so far. But how much
longer can the fraud be sustained? Especially so, when the aggrieved party
now controls Congress, and with it the power to subpoena, compel testimony
under oath, and threaten indictment for perjury and contempt of Congress?

At the outset of this electoral crime-wave, the perpetrators and their
clients were no doubt very encouraged by its effectiveness and apparent
"invisibility." At the time, it may not have occured to them to wonder just
how long the scam could be sustained, or what the consequences might be when
it finally unraveled and was exposed. They seemed to believe that it could
go on forever, thus ensuring a permanent GOP majority in Congress and
occupancy of the White House.

Now all that may be about to change, as the e-vote conspiracy is beginning
to fall apart with incalculably grave consequences for the Republicans, or,
on the other hand, prompting draconian countermeasures, as Bush and Cheney
apply their newly acquired dictatorial powers to avoid those consequences.

For we must always keep in mind that election fraud is a crime, with severe
criminal penalties, and a possible "death sentence" to the career of the
politician who benefits from it, and to the party that utilizes it.

Harbingers of the coming demise and exposure of the e-vote fraud may be
found declining public trust in elections in general, and in DREs in
particular. For example, the Zogby poll reports [6] that less than half of
the public is confident that Bush was re-elected fairly in 2004. Add to
this, reports of spectacular DRE failures, e.g., in the13th Congressional
district in Florida, where investigations are now under way and lawsuits are
pending. In fact, further law suits by defeated candidates [7] are likely,
and with them, investigations, discovery of evidence and testimony under
oath. Add to this ongoing expert analysis of the DRE machines and software
[8] and with them demonstrations of simulated frauds. The issue of election
fraud has become so "hot" that it is forcing itself into the mainstream
media.

Perhaps the Democrats have been silent about the issue because they were
powerless to do anything about it, and didn't want to sound like "sore
losers" and "conspiracy freaks." Now they are winners, and quite capable of
doing something about it.

There is no immediate need for the Congressional Democrats to prove that
past elections were stolen, though I suspect that these crimes will
eventually be uncovered, followed by convictions. It will suffice for the
moment if it is proven that these machines are vulnerable to hacking and
fraud, incapable of validation of votes, and thus unacceptable for use in
elections. This much has now been accomplished by numerous studies and
experiments, most recently and significantly by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, [9] a federal agency.

There is thus more than enough justification, and likely public support as
well, for the Congress to pass legislation that might ensure an honest and
accurate election in 2008. But this hopeful outcome will not fall onto the
laps of the fortunate Democrats. They must fight forcefully to achieve this
victory for democracy.

Once the integrity of the 2008 election is secured, there will be time to
investigate the stolen elections of the past, hopefully followed by
indictments, convictions, and prison terms.

Oversight and Impeachment.

No President and Vice President in the history of the United States have
been more deserving of impeachment, conviction, and removal from office.
They are guilty of much more than maladministration, though they are surely
guilty of that too. They are guilty of crimes too numerous to list in full,
but including lying to Congress, violations of the Geneva Conventions
against torture and the Nuremburg accords against war crimes (both of which
have the status of federal law), failure to obey and execute acts of
Congress, violations of intelligence laws (i.e., the Plame case), conspiracy
to defraud elections, conspiracy to defraud the government [10] about the
grounds for war, and violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh
and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution (i.e., the Bill of Rights).

The Bush administration, it seems, has been less an executive branch of
government than a criminal enterprise.

Believing all this, I am nonetheless unwilling to endorse demands for
immediate bills of impeachment against Bush and Cheney, for the simple and
compelling reason that such an approach is less likely to succeed.

Recent history teaches us that the direct route to impeachment may not be
the most effective.

Bill Clinton had scarcely taken his hand from the Bible at his 1993
inauguration, before calls of "impeach!" rang out in the halls of Congress.
And this was long before the Monica business surfaced. The GOP was out to
get Clinton from the get-go, and what followed was a relentless search for a
crime to fit the punishment of impeachment. There was Whitewater, Filegate,
Travelgate, the Vince Foster suicide, and even a thousand hours of
Congressional investigation of Clinton's Christmas Card list. Much of this
inquisition was financed by the $50 million directed by the GOP Congress to
Ken Starr's offices.

Despite the stoking of the impeachment fires by the mainstream media, the
public soon caught on to the phoniness of the travesty. Public opinion
supported Clinton and reviled Starr.

Contrast this with Nixon and Watergate. At the outset of the Congressional
Watergate investigations, there was little talk of impeachment. But then the
evidence accumulated and Nixon stonewalled. The case grew from the ground
up, as more and more objective and non-partisan evidence and testimony was
added to the foundation. After the word "impeachment" was first heard, the
case for impeachment grew from unlikely to possible to probable to
irresistible. Then Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott visited the White House
and told Nixon that it was all over: resign or be impeached and convicted.

The lesson: it would be foolish for the Democrats to rush the process and to
suggest even a hint of a vendetta. If the Democratic Congress does its job
(not a sure bet, unfortunately), then many and possibly most of the above
listed crimes will be meticulously and judiciously investigated. And Bush
and Cheney are in far more jeopardy than was Nixon when the Watergate
burglars were arrested. Many of these crimes are public, on the record, and
even acknowledged by the Busheviks. Their only defense is that they are not
really "crimes." But the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the treaties, and
the law say what they say.

If the Democratic House has the will, and if the investigating committees
are relentless, impeachment is likely, because the case is compelling. A
simple majority will suffice, and the Democrats have that majority.

However, the Senate would probably not convict and remove Bush and Cheney
from office. A vote of two-thirds of the Senate is required for conviction,
and it is not likely that enough Republicans will defect to add up to the
required 67 votes. But even so, a significant victory might be gained from
this "loss," when those Senators who voted "no," along with the no-voters in
the House, face their constituents.

Just what did Nancy Pelosi mean when she said that "impeachment is off the
table?" Did she mean "categorically and permanently off the table?" If so,
she may be making a colossal blunder. But I suspect that she means, "this
Congress begins with impeachment off the table. The future will bring what
it will bring - que sera, sera." If so, she is being very smart, and playing
her cards exactly as she should.

Let the investigations begin. That's the most promising road to impeachment
and conviction.

These three issues, Constitutional restoration, electoral integrity, and
oversight and impeachment, while urgently necessary, are by no means
sufficient steps toward an achievement of the promised government "of, by,
and for the people." For the sake of brevity, I will limit this discussion
to these three, mindful that many additional issues must be addressed by the
Congress if we are to attain and secure an authentic peoples' government.

For example, campaign finance reform and media diversity must also be dealt
with. But these have the best chance at success with a Democratic President
who will not veto reform legislation, and who will appoint reform-minded
individuals to such regulatory agencies as the Elections Commission and the
Federal Communications Commission.

If the 110th Congress fails to enact legislation that will assure an honest
election in 2008, then it will squander this opportunity as the GOP comes
roaring back in two years, lavishly funded with corporate cash, propped up
again by relentless and skillful propaganda of the mainstream media, and
utilizing, as before, the advantages obtained by a supportive, private and
unverifiable system of voting and vote compilation.

Civility and accommodation won't cut it. Since 1994, the Congressional
Republicans have shown us all just what they think fair-play and
bi-partisanship. "Date rape," as GOP honcho Grover Norquist has called it.
Time is short and the agenda is long. There is much that must be
accomplished if we the people are to have a fair shot at restoring and
maintaining a just and honorable government in the White House, the
Congress, and eventually the courts.

Copyright 2006, by Ernest Partridge

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson