IndyTruth Blog
GOP slips up again 
Sunday, September 2, 2007, 03:25 AM - Activism, Elections
Posted by Administrator
Over the past 8 years, the Republican Party has shown complete disrespect for the democratic process, stuffing ballot boxes in every way possible to get members of their party elected. This month, they have demonstrated that even their own are not immune to their corruption.

At the Iowa Straw Poll, a member of the Mitt Romney campaign in Iowa was also responsible for running the polls, an admitted conflict of interest which the GOP allowed. After suspicious activity with the Diebold voting machines, Romney won by a landslide. He then joked to the media about "stuffing the ballot boxes."

Today at the Texas Straw Poll, a person promoting their candidate outside the venue observed problems with delegates entering the doors. Voting was to take place at 1:00 PM, and the tickets purchased and printed from the Internet said that the event began at 10:00 AM. Delegates who paid for tickets and traveled to the event were refused entry after 10:00 AM. Part of the conflict was videotaped and posted on YouTube.

The photographer reported that between 10:00 AM and 1:30 PM, about twelve delegates with tickets were refused entry every ten minutes. That would add up to 2,500 votes that may not have been counted.

The Republican Party has no respect for its members or for this country and its democratic spirit. The party is so concerned with keeping its exclusive tier of puppet candidates in power that it is sabotaging the campaigns of other candidates in its own party.

I have contacted the chairman of the Republican Party about these issues. I hope that you will do the same. You can find information on how to do that at When members of the party were trying to kick Ron Paul out of the debates, a barage of calls and emails to the National GOP, Michigan GOP and other state GOP's showed results, and Ron Paul continued to participate in GOP debates.

Similar action in response to the Iowa and Texas straw polls should demand any possible action that could repair the tainted results of those polls. If we do not take a stand here, we can expect another presidential election with two incompetent candidates dominated by corporations and special interest groups who do not represent the Constitution or the American people.
1 comment ( 17 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
Closer than you think: The Republican Presidential Primaries 
Saturday, August 18, 2007, 03:13 AM - Elections
Posted by Administrator
There are many methods for polling the public on presidential candidates, and in this race the polls more debated than ever. Whether the polls are "scientific", straw or online, those who do not fare well are quick to criticize the accuracy of the poll and point bias in the direction of the winners. In search of accurate statistics about the status of the 2008 presidential race, I started analyzing data from all three types of polls for Republican race.

My analysis started with collection poll data from the introduction of Fred Thompson (for sake of consistency in percentages). After collecting data, an average was made of each poll type over the last two months. The results were as follows:

RP=Ron Paul, RG=Rudy Giuliani, MR=Mitt Romney, FT=Fred Thompson, JM=John McCain, MH=Mike Huckabee, SB=Sam Brownback, TT=Tom Tancredo, DH=Duncan Hunter, UO=Unsure or other.

The "scientific" polls are led by the media-labelled "first tier" candidates, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain. "Unsure" votes also thrive in these polls, which may indicate that their voters are less politically involved. The so-called "second tier" candidates as well as Mitt Romney did best in the straw polls, which I consider to be an indicator of active grassroots support. The online polls, comprised of polls from social networking sites as well as political sites, show Paul, Thompson and Giuliani in the lead. Each poll type has its advantages and disadvantages, so an average of the three may be the most fair, appropriate and accurate depiction of the real status of the election:

The averages above are made up of polls conducted between July 7 and August 12, 2007. A progressive look at the campaigns adds a new dimension to our analysis. Scientific polls tend to benefit the more popular names and well-funded campaigns. However, trends this summer show the favor of these polls turning.

Over the summer, Romney and McCain each decreased by more than one percent of the vote between averages of the first set of polls (June 1-10) and the second set of polls (June 23-July 29). Most of the candidates are falling.

Where are their votes going? Two percent of the votes lost by most of the candidates went to "unsure" or "undecided." Paul, Giuliani, and Brownback each increased by a fraction of one percent of the vote. Fred Thomas had saw an increase of over four percent of the vote.

Who really showed the most improvement though? Giuliani grew by less than two percent. Thomas grew by 25 percent. Brown and Paul actually demonstrated the most campaign growth, with Brown growing by 30 percent and Paul by 33 percent.

Voters in the scientific polls are turning away from their traditional voting habits, and moving toward "second tier" candidates at a rate that may alarm the major campaigns. In Michigan, Paul & Brownback each picked up 14.3% of votes that dropped from the Giuliani and McCain campaigns between April 14 and July 7. In New Hampshire, they each gained 8% from other candidates or undecided voters between March 31 and June 8.

With the media attention earned by a strong showing at the Iowa Straw Poll, the "second tier" candidates may see even more improvement in scientific polls this month. The fact is, such classification of candidates by the media is inaccurate. Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Sam Brownback are showing improvement on many fronts. The straw polls and online polls, which are no less "scientific" than the allegedly scientific polls, are in the favor of candidates who are not promoted by the mainstream media. The diversity of these candidates' following, especially for Ron Paul, is infecting the monopolized polls.

Remember, the number of people getting their news from television and newspapers is declining. The media cannot monopolize the presidential primaries for 2008 like they have in the past. The neo-conservative takeover of our Republic has motivated the people to transcend the propaganda and seek a new direction. Candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are no longer "long shots." The ideas that they are running on are stronger than the control mechanisms of the elite. This Spring it is more important than ever to vote for the BEST candidate (not the lesser of evils). Even the Las Vegas experts are giving them good odds, and the house always wins.

Scientific and some straw poll data retrieved from USAElectionPolls.Com. Straw polls used were the New Hampshire Taxpayers Straw Poll, Iowa Straw Poll, and the recent Illinois Straw Poll. Online polls used were Pajamas Media, a weekly, one-IP poll on a political web site, the "FreedomWorks Straw Poll", Vote On the Book and the Facebook-specific Newsvine polls, which allow one vote per Facebook account.

Submitted by Douglass.
add comment ( 8 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
Barack Obama's globalist, neoconservative foreign policy 
Friday, August 3, 2007, 01:46 AM - Elections, Foreign Policy, Globalism, News, Opinion
Posted by Administrator
It's official. Barack Obama has declared his globalist candidacy.

Obama has offered his views on foreign policy to the journal Foreign Affairs, published by none other than the Council on Foreign Relations. In doing so, he has pledged his allegiance not to the United States of America, but to the New World Order.

The August Review writes,

Prior to the founding of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was the most significant body of global-minded elitists in the United States. As far back as 1959, the CFR was explicit about a need for world government.

This is the organization that published "Building a North American Community", the document notorious for announcing the establishment of a North American Union. The CFR's agenda is the elimination of America's borders, sovereignty and democracy. If they have their way, there will be one world government. No more U.S. Constitution. Global fascism.

To be President of the United States, one must be a member or at least have the approval of the CFR and/or it's "twin" or extension the Trilateral Commission. Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and Vice Presidents George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney were all members of the Trilateral Commission. President George W. Bush carried out the CFR's "North American Community" plan through the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Senator Obama intends to advance their agenda as well if he is elected to the Presidency.

"After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent [by the Bush administration]," Obama writes, "many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America."

He puts it more clearly, "the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders." This is the very idea that led us into Iraq, fighting the "War on Terror" over there, so that we don't have to fight it here. How has that policy worked out? We have created more terrorism and killed hundreds of thousands by invading Iraq. We have killed more civilians than terrorists in our operations in Afghanistan (Obama wants "to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces").

For "America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace [in the Middle East]," Obama writes, "Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." Obama wants to continue arming Israel, as a means of reaching peace in the Middle East. His plan for peace is to arm the country in the region which has the most aggressive foreign policy.

Of course, Obama intends for America to have an aggressive foreign policy as well. "88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas," he complains, clarifying that our defense, our "national guard" will operate through operations abroad. Our National Guard working abroad under the Bush administration has certainly not been good for America. Catastrophe's on the homeland which equal and perhaps surpass those caused by terrorism, such as Hurricane Katrina and the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota, could certainly have been handled better with more National Guard present. 88 percent of our National Guard do not need to be "ready to deploy overseas," they need to be here, protecting our borders and responding to emergencies.

On the issue of nuclear non-proliferation, Obama calls on "George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn," globalist neoconservatives who were the leading foreign policy influences on the Bush administration.

"Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners," he says. He aims to "show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations." Sanctions certainly did nothing to engage the economy or assure security and diplomatic relations in Iraq. Certainly they will not do the same for Iran.

His concern that "It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy," neglects the fact that Imam Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, condemned weapons of mass destruction and specifically nuclear weapons:

If they continue to make huge atomic weapons and so forth, the world may be pushed into destruction and the major loss will afflict the nations. Everybody, where he is, the writers, intellectuals and scholars and scientists throughout the world should enlighten the people of this danger, so that the masses of people will standup vis-à-vis these two powers themselves and prevent the proliferation of these arms.

Nuclear weapons are considered prohibited and against the Islamic Law. As this blog has previously demonstrated, Iran is in compliance with the NPT, while the U.S. and Obama's good friend Israel violate it in many ways.

Obama's intention "to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security" sounds right out of the CFR's own documents encouraging globalization. These are the alleged goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which we could expect Obama to uphold in his administration.

Obama certainly intends to invest great resources into foreign "nation-building." he hopes to "build accountable institutions that deliver services and opportunity: strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, honest police forces, free presses, vibrant civil societies."

Senator Obama, how do we "spur development in poor countries" when employment and wages are in decline in our our country? How is your policy of using the military, National Guard, and other resources abroad any different than President Bush's?

Barack Obama's foreign policy is in tune with President Bush's. He will build up trade agreements, international authorities, the U.S. military, and foreign aid in a manner costly to American taxpayers and neglecting the core of America's foreign policy problem, the fact that other nations disrespect our imperialism.

Obama demonstrated his allegiance to the globalists by writing his piece for the CFR's Foreign Affairs. He declared in the essay his commitment to maintain the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. A candidate such as Obama is not sufficient to restore America's internation reputation, security, and domestic welfare. Few candidates are. The next President of the United States must strictly reverse the policies of the Bush administration, the neoconservatives and the Council on Foreign Relations. Barack Obama will not be that president.

Submitted by Douglass.
2 comments ( 45 views )   |  permalink   |  related link

<< <Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |