NH Optical Vote Scan Machines Violate Federal Law

by Bob Schulz

With an interest in defending the individual's constitutionally guaranteed Right to have and to know that his vote is being accurately counted, We The People Foundation determined the 2008 New Hampshire Primary recount offered an excellent, real-world opportunity to independently assess the statistical performance of optical scan, electronic vote counting machines relative to hand counting of ballots.

WTP has just completed its analysis of the data. Our principal findings are as follows.
Of the 347, 905 total ballots processed during the recount 305,207 (87.7%) came from towns and cities that use machines to count the votes, and 42,619 (12.3%) came from towns that use People to count the votes.

New Hampshire's vote counting machines violate federal accuracy standards. New Hampshire's machines experienced an error rate approximately 163 times greater than the error rate allowed under federal Election Law.

The probability that an individual's vote was accurately counted during the Primary was much greater if his vote was counted by hand than by machine.

Statewide, taking into consideration all the ballots that were included in the recount, the number of machine counts that were in error by more than 2 votes was 9.81 times greater than the number of hand counts that were off by more than 2 votes. The number of machine counts that were in error by more than 1 vote was 3.37 times greater than the number of hand counts that were off by more than 1 vote.

We identified 38 instances of apparent fraud where votes were being hand counted.
We were not able to determine if intentional or unintentional error was behind the more substantial discrepancies in machine counts. Nor were we able to determine the impact of the 21 machines that failed on Primary Day, or if other machine failures occurred but were not reported to the Secretary of State's office.

In brief, the analysis data supports the conclusion that not only are machine counts of votes much more likely to result in error, but the machine errors are of a significantly larger magnitude and variance than those observed for hand counting.

When the much higher frequency of machine-counted errors is coupled with the statistically disturbing magnitude of the machine errors, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the use of optical scan machines to count votes has robbed many citizens of New Hampshire of their Right to Vote and their Right to have their Vote counted accurately.Our analysis of the state's data and election practices suggest that there are numerous steps that the government of New Hampshire can take to bolster the integrity of its election process - whether votes are counted by hand or by machine. Although hand-counting of votes is clearly not yet a perfected art, in keeping alive the practice of hand-counting, New Hampshire has served its citizens well. Beyond this, the state should not subject its People to further enduring electronic voting machines that grossly fail to meet even the minimal accuracy standards mandated by federal law.We hope our analysis has provided some much needed light onto a matter that substantially affects the future of freedom in New Hampshire - and our entire Republic.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/NH-Recount/NH-RecountRpt-Feb-2008.htm

Arizona Senate Panel would allow guns at colleges

By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
PHOENIX — A Senate panel voted Monday to let students and staff at community colleges and state universities arm themselves for protection, but not their counterparts at public schools.

The 4-3 vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee came after Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, agreed to limit SB 1214 only to publicly operated colleges and universities.

Johnson said it was not a change she wanted to make. But she conceded there are not enough votes for her original bill to also allow guns into K-12 schools.

"I still feel like our little kindergartners are sitting there as sitting ducks," she said, defenseless if someone with a weapon burst into the classroom.

Approval of Johnson's legislation came as the House gave preliminary approval on voice vote to two separate measures easing restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon.

Current law makes possession of a hidden weapon by someone without a state permit a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. HB 2630 would reduce that to a petty offense punishable by only a fine.

Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said Arizona law already allows just about anyone to carry a weapon in the open. He said there is no reason to impose criminal penalties on those who might just inadvertently break the law because a holster was hidden by a jacket.

"The worst tragedy that we can impose on folks is to be prosecuted when they have no culpable mental state of being a bad guy," he said.

A second measure approved by the House, HB 2389, allows individuals without a state permit to carry a weapon anywhere in a private vehicle, even hidden, without fear of arrest. Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said this measure, too, will prevent otherwise innocent people from being prosecuted because a gun on the seat got covered up by a jacket.

The legislation came over the objection of Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix. He said the change would protect not only otherwise good citizens but also gang members and others who now would be able to hide weapons within easy reach.

"This is crazy," he said. Gallardo said it will only complicate the job of police officers who already are in fear every time they stop a vehicle.

Johnson introduced her legislation after a series of high-profile shootings on campuses, from the 1999 incident at Columbine High School in Colorado where teens killed 12 students and a teacher to killings a year ago at Virginia Tech where a gunman killed 32 before shooting himself. She said the killings earlier this month at Northern Illinois University only underscored her belief that fewer might have died if there had been someone on campus with a gun who could have killed the attacker.

The legislation limits the right to carry a weapon onto a campus to someone with a state concealed-carry permit. Getting a permit requires a background check, fingerprinting and several hours of training in a state-approved class that explains the laws of when people can use deadly force as well as actually handling and firing the gun.

Only those who are at least 21 can have such permits.

Johnson said she still believes teachers and other adults at public schools should be able to carry weapons to protect students in their care. But she said even this scaled-back version serves a purpose.

She noted that some of the testimony a week earlier in favor of the measure came from students in the state university system who are 21, have permits to carry concealed weapons but are precluded now from doing so. Johnson said that included women who fear for their safety while walking across campus at night.

"If we could just allow them to be able to protect themselves as they see the need, that would be something," Johnson said.

But Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, said even this modified version of the measure is unacceptable.

"I just don't look at schools in any capacity as being a good place to have firearms, whether from someone who is deranged or someone who just happens to be a student or a faculty," he said.

All content copyright © 1999-2008 AzStarNet, Arizona Daily Star and its wire services

We`re from the government, and we`re here to help you.

by DAVID B. KOPEL, PAUL GALLANT & JOANNE D. EISEN

While the United Nations works diligently to curb the Second Amendment rights of Americans, it is turning a blind eye to abused Karamojong tribesmen fighting a brutal government to keep their only means of self-defense.

International gun prohibition groups are working hard and successfully to push an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) through the United Nations. They claim that the reason the treaty is needed is that arms are often used to violate human rights.

True enough. One need only look at Burma, where the military dictatorship has been torturing and killing Buddhist monks and other pro-rights activists. Burma, by the way, has a strict gun control law dating back to 1951: The president can ban any gun by fiat, and any person possessing a banned gun is presumed guilty of high treason and must prove his innocence.
One thing that the media doesn`t tell you about the Arms Trade Treaty is that an important goal of its proponents is an international legal ban on the sale of arms, including components for making guns, to Israel. Control Arms is a gun control lobby jointly created by the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Amnesty International and Oxfam. In November 2006, Control Arms issued "Arms Without Borders," a document setting forth the case for the Arms Trade Treaty, and describing Israel as one the countries that the ATT would target.
Nor does the media point out that another target of the ATT is the United States, since our gun and self-defense laws are-according to the UN Human Rights Commission-violations of international human rights. American crime victims and police officers can use firearms to defend against non-lethal attacks, such as attacks by rapists, armed robbers or home arsonists. Yet according to the UN, allowing a woman to save herself from rape by shooting the rapist is a human rights violation.

But the most glaring omission in the discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty as a human rights tool is the complete silence about how gun control has so often been used to violate human rights. Consider, for example, what`s going on right now in Uganda.

The borderlands of northeastern Uganda, northwestern Kenya, southeastern Sudan and southwestern Ethiopia are occupied by the tribes of the pastoral Karamojong people. Cattle herds are the center of their culture, and provide the major source of dietary protein from milk, blood and meat. Wealth and local political power are based on the size of one`s cattle herd. For countless generations, cattle rustling has been a traditional Karamojong pursuit.

The UN and its disarmament cronies have recently claimed that the availability of modern arms has made cattle raiding deadlier and that civilian gun ownership is the root cause of the area`s problems. Not so, replies Ben Knighton, who is dean of the research program at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, and author of the book The Vitality of Karamojong Religion: Dying Tradition or Living Faith? Knighton argues that the Ugandan army`s gun confiscation program is itself the major cause of violence.

Even Kilfemarian Gebre-Wold, former director of a voluntary gun surrender program sponsored by Germany`s Bonn International Center for Conversion, forthrightly acknowledges that "though many pastoralist households have small arms, the rate of crime and violent incidents is not high in their community ... the density of weapons does not mean automatically the rise of gun-related violence."

Unfortunately, these humanitarians do not make policy. Milton Obote, Uganda`s first prime minister, imposed a nationwide ban on the civilian possession of firearms in 1969. General Idi Amin later overthrew Obote, and, thanks to Obote`s previous gun control work, was able to perpetrate genocide, killing hundreds of thousands of Ugandans, especially in Karamoja. The Karamojong tried to fight back using steel tubing from furniture to fabricate crude firearms.
the Karamojong had learned that cows and guns are equally indispensable-a gun needs to be readily accessible in order to protect one`s herd. Obote retaliated by using his army and secret police to brutalize the tribes.

The Tanzanian army invaded Uganda and overthrew Amin in 1979. While Amin`s army was collapsing in the face of the Tanzanian invasion and the subsequent chaos, the Karamojong found easy access to deserted government armories filled with modern weapons.

Julius Nyerere, the dictator of Tanzania, restored Obote as dictator of Uganda. Obote quickly resumed his attempts to disarm the Karamojong. His efforts were often forcefully repelled, because the Karamojong had learned that cows and guns are equally indispensable-a gun needs to be readily accessible in order to protect one`s herd. Obote retaliated by using his army and secret police to brutalize the tribes.

In 1984, the Ugandan and Kenyan armies collaborated in Operation Nyundo ("Hammer") to eliminate armed herders seeking cross-border safety. Lepokoy Kolimuk, a village elder in Kanyarkwat village, Kenya, said the soldiers were "wild beyond humanity." The number of human deaths remains unknown. Twenty thousand cattle were rounded up and starved to death. Nevertheless, Operation Nyundo failed to disarm the Karamojong.

In 1986, strongman Yoweri Museveni toppled Obote and continued the violent firearms confiscation. The army, with the wildly inaccurate title of Uganda People`s Defence Forces (UPDF) abused civilians by looting supplies and raping women. The UPDF`s actions confirmed to the Karamojong that their only protection from government predators with guns was keeping defensive guns themselves. The resistance was so great that Museveni temporarily abandoned his disarmament efforts in 1989.

Yet prompted by the UN, Museveni got back into the gun control business in 2001, with a voluntary gun surrender program. The program expired on Feb. 15, 2002, and only 7,676 guns (out of a conservatively estimated 40,000 in Karamojong hands) were collected.

In order to confiscate the rest of the firearms, the army re-commenced what the international gun-ban lobbies euphemistically call "forcible disarmament." Rape, torture and the destruction of homes after systematic army looting became commonplace.

Father Declan O`Toole, a member of the Mill Hill Missionaries, asked the army to be "less aggressive." Just a few days later, on March 21, 2002, he was murdered by UPDF soldiers. The murderers were apprehended and executed before they could reveal who had given them the order to kill Father O`Toole. Uganda President Museveni blamed the Karamojong, claiming, "The best way to stop such incidents in [the] future is for the Karamojong to hand in their guns to eliminate any justification for the UPDF operations in the villages."

In the northern district of Kotido, the Ugandan army engaged armed civilians and captured about 30 rifles on May 16. Thirteen civilians and two soldiers died-one person dead for every two guns confiscated. Thousands of residents were displaced because their homes were torched by UPDF troops.

By mid-July of 2002, the total number of guns recovered by the government, from both the voluntary and forced gun surrender programs, had reached nearly 10,000, leaving tens of thousands of guns still in Karamojong hands.

Museveni had promised to increase security for people who gave up their guns, but that promise proved empty. The disarmament only created a new group of victims, who were preyed upon by those who still had firearms. There were many instances of violence against the disarmed, by both civilians and soldiers. After homes were bombed and crops were destroyed, thousands of tribespeople fled across the border to Kenya. About 80,000 more people were internally displaced.

Despite all the suffering inflicted on the Karamojong, the disarmament program failed. In 2002, the pro-government Ugandan newspaper New Vision acknowledged that the Karamojong were now "purchasing more guns to replenish those either voluntarily handed [over] or forcefully recovered by the government."

Another Kenya-Uganda military assault on Karamoja`s gun-owning villages was launched in 2005, but in 2006, Col. Phenehas Katirima, chief of personnel and administration in the UPDF, admitted, "Brand new guns from western Europe, across the Mediterranean and the Middle East have been seen in Karamoja."

Because of the human rights atrocities, the United Nations Development Programme temporarily suspended its funding of the Ugandan development and voluntary disarmament programs. (The UN had never funded the military program, except to the extent that money is fungible, and foreign aid is often diverted by corrupt governments.)

Still, the Ugandan army`s campaign persisted. On Oct. 29, 2006, the UPDF attempted to disarm the village of Lopuyo, but was repulsed after an 8-hour battle with armed Karamojong. Army spokesman Major Felix Kulaije stated that, in the course of retrieving firearms, "we went there peacefully in a cordon and search operation." However, the villagers told a more harrowing story. The army surrounded the village and began to question and torture young men. Still, few guns were recovered, and the tribesmen began to attack the UPDF.

The UPDF then launched retaliatory raids on the Karamojong using a helicopter gunship, but found that they no longer had complete control of the airspace. Some of the new weapons the Karamojong had acquired were capable of hitting aircraft.

On Nov. 10, 2006, the UN news agency Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) reported that the village of Kadokini was targeted. "UPDF tanks then drove through the village crushing and damaging properties, including huts and granaries." The result was three deaths, seven acts of torture and five guns confiscated by the army. Many similar attacks have also been reported by the UN and local newspapers.

the UPDF continues to engage in acts which ultimately result in human rights violations, including killings, injuries, torture, damages and destruction of property and livelihoods.
Yet the UN-which seems to be more in favor of gun control schemes than opposed to gross human rights violations-has not demanded that Museveni reign in his troops. Instead, according to the UN`s acting humanitarian coordinator in Uganda, Theophane Nikyema: "The United Nations ... appeals to Karamojong communities to refrain from violent responses to law and order efforts." With alliances forming among the tribes in order to defeat their common enemy-their government-it does not appear that they are willing to disarm, but are instead preparing for further violent resistance.

The UN`s news service did admit on May 30, 2007, that, "Intermittent efforts to disarm, sometimes forcibly, up to 20 million pastoralists in the Horn of Africa, who are believed to possess 5 million firearms, have failed ... and forcible disarmament has not worked."
It`s doubtful that a single Karamojong man or woman has ever heard of former NRA President Charlton Heston. Yet the Karamojong people plainly share his sentiment: "From my cold, dead hands."

In the meantime, the Ugandan government continues its own efforts to increase the number of cold, dead hands among the Karamojong. Ugandan Gen. Aronda Nyakairima states that the UPDF is ready to use "any available means" to get civilian guns. According to a report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "The UPDF continues to engage in acts which ultimately result in human rights violations, including killings, injuries, torture, damages and destruction of property and livelihoods." The UPDF attacks take place not only in Uganda, but also in Karamojong regions of Kenya.

The UN personnel who have reported on the human rights abuses in Uganda`s gun control campaign deserve respect. It is unfortunate that Control Arms, Amnesty International, Oxfam and IANSA have said nothing about the Ugandan army`s gun control depredations against the Karamojong. It`s not as if they`re unaware of the problem; we hand-delivered our previous report on the problem to them in July 2007 at the UN gun control conference. It was during the same conference that the UN cut off funding for Uganda-an act that was not exactly kept secret from the people at the conference.

If the true purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty is really to protect human rights-rather than to set the stage for arms embargos on the U.S. and Israel-the treaty will need to address the problem of arms possessed by armies like the UPDF and the human rights atrocities they perpetrate in the name of gun control.

This article is based on "Human Rights and Gun Confiscation," which will appear in the Quinnipiac Law Review in early 2008, and is available at http://www.davekopel.org/ .

Posted: 12/20/2007 12:00:00 AM

Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=267
window.print();

Crossing The Rubicon: Breaking The Fake News Trance

by Neil Kramer

The phrase ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ is a metaphor for proceeding past a point of no return. It originates from 49 BC when Julius Caesar directed his legions south across the river Rubicon (a traditional barrier between the Roman province of ‘Cisalpine Gaul’ and Italy proper) towards ancient Rome in defiance of the Roman Senate. Upon crossing the river, Caesar is reported to have shouted "Alea iacta est" ... the die is cast!

In terms of the awakening process, Crossing the Rubicon is a key revelatory stage when you realize, beyond any doubt, that the government is NOT your friend. The stark recognition that you have been living in a false paradigm created by someone else begins to sink in. It is here, at this bleak philosophical crossroads, where most people experience such a disturbing degree of

cognitive dissonance, that they instinctively turn back. Too much to process and the implications are huge. So even knowing that there is a greater truth on the horizon, they choose instead to return to the Control System, to the Village, with all its securities and comfortable certainties.

“You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? [Takes a bite of steak]. Ignorance is bliss.”

Abandon Self-Limitation All Ye Who Enter Here

Journalist Nick Davies has arrived at the shores of the Rubicon. He’s currently causing quite a stir in UK media circles. His article in the Independent sums things up nicely -

How the spooks took over the news. Essentially reflections from his book Flat Earth News, Davies illustrates how “shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion – and the media simply swallow it wholesale.” It’s really energizing to observe how this information can land slap bang in the middle of the mainstream outlets. Without doubt, it reaches people and helps to consolidate awareness of how easily the news is skewed towards a pre-determined message. Even more interestingly, Davies also suggests who the perpetrators are and why they’re doing it. Sure, he’s selling a book – but his information is credible (according to my research), and after listening to a recent interview with him, you can tell it is also heartfelt.

In the Guardian, Davies describes how

Our media have become mass producers of distortion and he evidences this with clear, unambiguous examples. He convincingly delivers the message that “the mass media generally are no longer a reliable source of information.” That is, for those who need any more convincing. Regardless, he is pretty much a lone voice taking an admirable and revolutionary stance against hordes of supercilious hacks.

Davies is careful to characterize the problem as a structural thing; it’s not really about attacking individual journalists. He points to the momentous change of press ownership as the pivotal event responsible for mutating quality news into fake news. Switching from the historic patriarchal proprietors to the mega corporations, like News International owned by Rupert Murdoch’s

News Corp. We know that the raison d’être of the corporations is to make money. Quality and truth are quite irrelevant. So over a short period, Davies believes that the instinctive logic of commercialism gradually replaced the objective logic of journalism. The consequences were devastating for the integrity of impartial news reporting. The corporate ownership of news has now all but destroyed the principle of truth telling by grossly politicizing the news agenda and drastically reducing the actual time available for journalists to do their jobs. This tends to propagate churnalism (bad journalism; journalists that churn out rewrites of press releases) and hence bias. And we’re not talking about the gutter press here. We’re talking ‘quality’ newspapers.

Davies has unearthed some incredibly damning information. “I commissioned research from specialists at Cardiff University, who surveyed more than 2000 UK news stories from the four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their "facts", they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just couldn't be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these "facts" had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the stories. The implication of those two findings is truly alarming. Where once journalists were active gatherers of news, now they have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by PR to serve some political or commercial interest. Not journalists, but churnalists. An industry whose primary task is to filter out falsehood has become so vulnerable to manipulation that it is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda.”

The news is horseshit. This can no longer be construed as unconventional, activist opinion anymore – it is plain, well evidenced, undeniable fact. We must seriously discipline ourselves (and those we care about) to stop being suckered by what we see on BBC & CNN, and by what we read in The Times or The Post. A far better alternative is to seek out one’s own news. Believe nothing unless you have done your own research. Use the Internet. Practice being a prudent and discerning researcher; employ equal measures of intuition and critical judgement at every turn. And remember, the Internet was not even widely available before 1994. There were no other easily accessible alternative news sources. You got your news from the TV and the paper or you got nothing. You could haul your ass down to a decent public library and spend a few days trawling through archive newspapers and microfilm. But rather unlikely. So now the Internet is here… use it.

The Matrix: It Just Works

Nick Davies has figured out that the media is a propaganda machine and there never was a golden age of independent, equitable journalism. However, Davies appears unaware (as most people are) of the sheer penetration of the Control System. For example, he states that [after 911] “For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception.”

To students of the esoteric and the transcendent, it is elementary lesson #1 that the Control System’s containment techniques have been in place from the very beginning. Thousands of years of deception and suppression. Though that is rather a mind-bending stretch for those without a basic grounding in the hidden history of mankind. You have to digest the works of a few dozen alternate historians and arcane researchers (employing the proper research techniques of course) to begin to understand that the real strands of history are revealed through esoteric symbols and the traditions of ancient mystery schools. The official history books and encyclopaedias give only a very limited, surface level of data. You have to dig deeper.

Even though Davies is eloquently and accurately proclaiming media collusion in a government/spook sponsored programme of mass deception – the public sort of don’t care. And that is the genius of the Control System: its ability to channel apathy. It is not enough to demonstrate that our governments are corrupt. Most people already know that. Sometimes Joe public might initially be shocked at the squalid details of exactly how crooked our governments are - but it’s still not going to shift the train tracks from the habitual circular layout. Work food tv sleep… work food tv sleep. I foresee a time when it will be proven beyond reasonable doubt that 911 was the work of a cabal of CIA, MI6 & Mossad agents conspiring with senior figures in the US government. Nothing to do with Arab terrorists. And guess what? No one will care. A few politicians and military personnel will go to jail. Enough time passes and people don’t care. They forget. They’re watching American Idol and 24. Everyone knows something is fishy about 911 but what to do about it. Who gives a damn that we’re still illegally occupying Iraq? And what are we doing in Afghanistan exactly? Did the American military lie about Iranian gunboats harassing warships in the Strait Of Hormuz? Whatever, let's watch Prison Break.

Ever since the days of Nixon and the egregious Kissinger, anyone who has kept an eye on politics has been aware that conspiracy and corruption are standard government practices. Assassinations and espionage are the staple diet of operational agencies like MI6 and CIA. Any

ridiculous claims to the contrary do not stand up for long. Amidst the tiresome Princess Diana courtroom charade (she was executed end of story), Ian Burnett QC, for the coroner, asked former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove the following question: "During the whole of your time in SIS (MI6), from 1966 to 2004, were you ever aware of the service assassinating anyone?" Dearlove replied: “No, I was not.”

You’ve got to laugh.

Michael Moore’s 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11 is a classic example of the limited utility of pursuing documentary based exposés. He turns the spotlight on the US and military administration’s apparent ineptness and secrecy in handling the 911 event, but fails to explore the idea that 911 was nothing to do with 19 Arab hijackers. That would be crossing the Rubicon into unknown territory. He won’t do that. Moore does succeed, however, in highlighting corporate corruption, illegal invasions and political favouritism. But even the casual viewer intuitively knows that. Whist Moore’s analysis of government responses and dodgy deals resonates well throughout the film, the effect does not last. The viewer leaves the theatre and still goes to McDonalds, still votes Democrat, still thinks Football is important and still believes that CNN are broadcasting news.
No intelligent researcher who has taken the time to systematically analyze the events of 911 can come away thinking it was just another political and administrative fuck up. No chance. 911 was a breathtakingly audacious mega ritual. And it worked. Professionally executed, meticulously planned and successful in achieving its objectives of broadcasting fear and rushing through totalitarian legislation (masquerading as The Patriot Act). The parallels that some researchers draw between the corrupt governments of the US/UK and the Nazis are perfectly reasonable. Watch how they become even more closely aligned over the next few years.

So Moore’s predicament is quite explicable to me. Without a spiritual solution, there is NO solution. And I don’t think he can offer a way out. He can dish the dirt, but he can’t propose a meaningful resolution to the practical problems of living inside a dictatorship. Notions of lobbying congress, demonstrations in the streets, leafleting, boycotting stuff, even taking up arms – all utterly pointless. You’re playing their game with their rules and they will always win.
Jump off the moving train. Take the spiritual path.

Changing Beliefs, Raising Frequencies

As I have said before, if human consciousness allows itself to be manipulated through fear-based and trauma-based systems (entrenched in our media, entertainment and news broadcasts) then the Control System can implant a reality of its own that keeps us self-limiting and passive. We are just cabling for their network.

Breaking the trance and going through the cognitive dissonance is hard. But once through the other side, the profound insight and enhanced awareness are deeply liberating and a source of immense internal power. All the messed up, gloomy socio-political problems like immigration, crime, health, housing, war, economy, education – they all begin to make sense. They aren’t a mess because the government is inept, they are a mess by design. To keep the wheels turning and the workers working. Keep em busy. A life’s work to own a house. A decent pension right at the end if you’re lucky. Madness. Inhumanity. Once you have the ‘coordinates’ (the magic codes that make sense of all the surface weirdness), everything begins to slot into place. The mist of confusion evaporates. You can see. And the Control System coordinates are horribly uncomplicated: 99% of the planet lives in a consumer plantation designed to provide physical and spiritual slave labour to an elite few. A Control System exists to maintain and protect the system. The best metaphor for it can be found by watching

The Matrix.

Imagination is our holographic engine. It makes the world. Literally. If our imagination is running someone else’s program, we are living in someone else’s dream. It is time to take control and observe how manipulated scientific and religious dogma has misled us about how our world actually functions. Time is not linear. We are not hopeless wanderers in a cold lifeless universe. We do not cease to exist when the body (the bio-suit) is finished. Life is a progression of many lives, many consciousnesses and many worlds. This is one of them. You are one story; one piece of cosmic consciousness. Indestructible. We are designed to interact with the universe by articulating and encoding it with our wisdom, love, intent and creativity. These are things of galactic significance. Not nice-to-haves.

Do not let someone else’s belief system restrict your imagination. No religion, no government, no teacher can guide you better than you can guide yourself. The very act of comprehending the nature of our creative consciousness undermines the Control System by raising the frequency of consciousness out of the manipulation field and into inspired independence. I believe, as others have for millennia, that the outer world is a direct reflection of our own private inner consciousness. When a critical mass of people understand that the game is not a good game anymore, that there is a better way of living and evolving, then the awesome synchronous power of the universe begins to paint a new world into being.

Further Notes

Listen to an interview with Nick Davies. There are a number of items on this Guardian podcast, but after a bit of interviewer babble, Davies is first up.

David Icke on ‘repeaters’. Very relevant to this article.

Operation Paperclip describes how the Americans brought Nazis into some of their leading organizations (like NASA) following WWII.

http://thecleaver.blogspot.com/2008/02/crossing-rubicon-waking-from-fake-news.html

Nick Kramer lives in Manchester, England

koan@inbox.com

McCain Says He Could Lose Over War Issue

Feb 25, 5:50 PM (ET)



By LIZ SIDOTI


ROCKY RIVER, Ohio (AP) - John McCain said Monday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can't, "then I lose. I lose," the Republican said. He quickly backed off that remark.


"Let me not put it that stark," the likely GOP nominee told reporters on his campaign bus. "Let me just put it this way: Americans will judge my candidacy first and foremost on how they believe I can lead the county both from our economy and for national security. Obviously, Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security."


"If I may, I'd like to retract 'I'll lose.' But I don't think there's any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge," McCain added.



"Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree."


The five-year-old Iraq conflict already is emerging as a fault line in the general election, with the Arizona senator calling for the U.S. military to continue its mission while his Democratic opponents urge speedy withdrawal.



Most Republicans still back the war, many independents and Democrats don't. That presents a significant challenge for McCain and an opportunity for either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.


McCain acknowledged the war will be "a significant factor in how the American people judge my candidacy."


The lead Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain has consistently backed the war although he's long criticized the way it was waged after the Saddam Hussein's fall. He was an original proponent of President Bush's troop-increase strategy, having called for more forces on the ground for several years. Last spring, McCain went all in on the war by embracing it as Bush took heat for boosting troop levels to quell violence.


"We can fail in Iraq," McCain said Monday in an Associated Press interview. But, he added: "I see a clear path to success in Iraq." He defined that as fewer casualties and Iraqi troops taking over security to allow U.S. forces to return home. "All of us want out of Iraq, the question is how do we want out of Iraq," he added.


McCain has signaled that he plans to make Iraq and national security a major part of his general election campaign. Daily, he accuses both Obama and Clinton as wanting to "wave the white flag of surrender." Democrats, for their part, are arguing that McCain's candidacy is simply a continuation of Bush's "failed" policies. They have seized on a previous McCain remark in which he suggested that U.S. troop presence - at some level - could extend 100 years or more.

At a town hall-style meeting in suburban Cleveland, McCain accused Democrats of distorting that comment and sought to explain. "The war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us," he said. Like after other wars, he said, the United States then will decide "what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis."


While McCain attracts voters across the political spectrum, he is sure to face resistance this fall for his Iraq position in Ohio and other swing states that have seen high numbers of residents die in Iraq.


Over the next eight months, McCain said he would take the same approach when discussing Iraq that he's taken all year as he won primary after primary on his way to securing the GOP nomination.


Speaking to reporters on his bus, he said he would "tell them that I understand their frustration and their sorrow over the sacrifice that has been made and then I try to explain to them what's at stake and what's going on there now. And that's the best I can do."


McCain said his candidacy will be successful "if I can convince the American people, the people of Ohio, that this is succeeding, that the casualties will continue down, although there are occasional spikes."


"So I have to, and I believe can, make an argument that the surge is succeeding, that we will end this war and have the Iraqis take over those responsibilities as we more and more assume support roles and then withdraw," he added.


McCain recalled reading a USA Today poll that he said showed most people believe the troop-increase strategy is succeeding, and said: "Now, still the majority of Americans want out of Iraq. And, I understand that, too. So do I."


The survey actually found that 43 percent - not a majority - said the troop increase is "making the situation there better," up from 22 percent in July.


Asked why he asked to retract the "I lose" remark, McCain said much else could impact his chances.


"We've got many months to go before the general election," he said. "But is Iraq an important part of the judgment that people will make of me, of course."

Oscars a ratings flop

Benz speaks:

Gee, do you think it might have something to do with CONTENT???????

By James Hibberd
Feb 26, 2008

Oscar host Jon Stewart received generally positive reviews. (Reuters photo)UPDATED 1:30 p.m. PT Monday, Feb. 25, 2008COMPLETE OSCAR COVERAGEThis season continues to be no country for network award shows.Following the lowest-rated Emmys since 1990, the strike-hindered ratings performance of a severely truncated version of the Golden Globes and a nonstruck airing of the Grammys that nonetheless disappointed, Sunday night's presentation of the 80th Annual Academy Awards on ABC hit an all-time ratings low.According to overnight fast national ratings, the awards averaged a 10.7 rating among adults 18 to 49 and was seen by 32 million viewers. In the demo, that's down a sharp 24% from last year and the lowest on record. Among viewers, that's a 20% drop. The previous all-time low was in 2003.Last night's Oscar telecast, where "No Country for Old Men" took the top prize, was expected to underperform given the lack of movies with broad boxoffice appeal vying for best picture. ABC and producers also were unsure whether the Oscars were going forward with a full production until the writers strike was resolved Feb. 12, resulting in last-minute scramble to prepare and market the show.The strike hurt the awards in another way, too. ABC had fewer scripted hits such as "Grey's Anatomy" and "Desperate Housewives" airing original episodes, so there was less of a promotional platform for running Oscar ads. During the week of Feb. 11-17, ABC's average ratings were down 36% versus last season among adults 18-49.The highest-rated Oscar telecast during the past five years was in 2004, when audience favorite "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" won best picture. The airing was seen by 43.5 million viewers and received a 15.3 rating among adults 18-49. Viewership declined the next two years, then spiked slightly in 2007 when "The Departed" took home the top prize (14.1 rating/33 share and was seen by 40 million viewers).Critics said the Sunday night production's last-minute turnaround was evident, with the event lacking humorous sketches and overstuffed with dreary clip shows.The Associated Press said the Oscars "had an underwhelming feel that left the clear impression it was put together on the fly." The Washington Post said, "The show was so overstocked with clips from movies -- from this year's nominees and from Oscar winners going back to 1929 -- that it was like a TV show with the hiccups. While THR noted: "producers failed to notice that the best moments in those endless montages came from memorable acceptance speeches. Instead they were in ... a rush to get winners off the stage."Host Jon Stewart generally received praise for his performance, with critics saying he significantly improved on his 2006 debut as Oscar emcee.ABC still managed to dominate Sunday night competition, with its red carpet show coming in second place for the night (6.3 rating) and the Barbara Walters annual Oscar special (3.2),Distant runner-up Fox aired the Nascar Sprint Cup (3.9/10) and a "Simpsons" repeat (2.6/6).CBS had "60 Minutes" (1.8/5), an on par "Big Brother" (2.2) and a slightly dipped "Cold Case" repeat (1.8/4). At 10 p.m., CBS aired "Dexter" (2.0/5), which continued to drop.In fourth, NBC aired a marathon of "Law & Order" franchise repeats (averaging 1.3/3 for the night).The CW had "CW Now" (0.3/1) and comedy repeats.
Latest news »


Links referenced within this article COMPLETE OSCAR COVERAGEhttp://www.thr.com/oscartook the top prizehttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i3da710641ca059c5d24d791d3db96f53Associated Press saidhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/ap_en_tv/oscars_tv_review_3Washington Post saidhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022500046.htmlTHR notedhttp://www.thr.com/hr/content_display/features/awards-season/e3i3da710641ca059c545f65b5d65650280received praise for his performancehttp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08056/860246-42.stmLatest news »http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/news/index.jsp

Find this article at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i799fee0aec8e6bc178ce79d411252327




© 2008 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved.
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);

McCain Foreign Policy Advisors

Richard Lee Armitage, President George W. Bush’s deputy secretary of state and an international business consultant and lobbyist, informal foreign policy adviser

Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations editor and former Wall Street Journal editorial editor, foreign policy adviser

Lawrence S. Eagleburger, President George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state and a senior public policy adviser with law firm Baker Donelson, endorsed McCain April 10

Henry A. Kissinger, President Nixon and President Ford’s secretary of state who met McCain in Vietnam and is now a consultant, informal adviser

William Kristol, The Weekly Standard editor, informal foreign policy adviser

Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush and founder of business consultancy the Scowcroft Group, adviser

George P. Shultz, President Reagan’s secretary of state and a Hoover Institution Fellow, endorsed McCain April 10

Washington Post
Wednesday, October 2, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html

Clinton / Obama Foreign Policy Advisors

Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

Source: Foreign Policy In Focus
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

Who is business betting on in 2008

By Nina Easton,

Fortune Washington bureau chief
June 26 2007: 6:28 PM EDT
(Fortune Magazine) -- One of Hillary Clinton's most important courtships began early last year, around a formal dinner table at Georgetown's Four Seasons Hotel. Her targets were Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack and his wife, Christy. Mack was already active politically - but on behalf of Clinton's political opponents. A Bush "Ranger," he had raised at least $200,000 for the President's reelection bid and was one of the most prominent business names on GOP donor lists. At one time his name had circulated as a potential Bush Treasury Secretary.
But these are strangely fluid political times, with long-held alliances shifting under the weight of an unpopular President, an unpopular war and no obvious White House heir on either side.
Morgan Stanley (Charts, Fortune 500) chief administrative officer Thomas Nides, a former Clinton trade official and one of the Democratic Party's more astute strategists, understood the possibilities better than most. That's why he had invited the Macks to a fundraiser for Clinton's Senate reelection at his Washington home - and then completed the evening by taking the trio to dinner at the Four Seasons.

The subject of a Clinton presidential bid never came up that night - except in Nides's whirling brain. He knew that the prospect of persuading his Republican boss to support a Clinton presidential bid was a long shot.

But he also appreciated the importance of trying. Adding such a prominent GOP executive to the Clinton roster would counteract business fears that the former First Lady is a big-government, big-spending, big-taxing liberal. "It would say to the business community, 'It's safe to swim here,'" Nides recalled.

The conversation that night ranged widely, but always returned to one subject: health-care reform. John Mack chairs the board of trustees at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. Christy Mack, the daughter of a doctor, helped found the Bravewell Collaborative to promote health care that treats "the whole person, not just the disease."

Hillary Clinton was on familiar territory - and managed to charm the couple not only with her "intelligence and educated responses," as Christy Mack recalls, but also with her one-on-one charisma. "You have these preconceived ideas about people you see in the public eye," says Christy. "But we were extremely impressed with her ability to connect with every single person. She was an amazing listener, with tremendous warmth."

The relationship could have ended there - a New York Senator engaging her local constituents. But early this year Clinton upped the ante with a phone call to the Morgan Stanley CEO, asking him to support her presidential bid. When he demurred, she asked for a meeting. Once again - this time over coffee - John and Christy Mack found themselves enticed. When Mack returned to his office, he told Nides he was ready to commit. "John, you can wait, you don't have to commit yet," Nides responded. "No," Mack replied, "early support is better support." Days later Mack picked up the phone and sealed the deal. Clinton, Nides recalls, "put the time in."

Multiply that effort many times over, and you can understand why the safe to swim signs are sprouting up all over Clinton Inc. Yet she is not the only Democrat to achieve surprising success in a realm traditionally taken for granted by Republicans. Her leading Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, has made forays into Wall Street and Hollywood to nab business support. He, too, has found admirers among top Republicans, most notably John Canning Jr., CEO of Chicago private-equity firm Madison Dearborn.

For their part, top GOP candidates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney have lined up a small army of pinstriped pitchmen. But what's different this time is that CEOs are up for grabs on both sides. A Fortune survey of where business leaders are lining up in the 2008 race, based on dozens of interviews with top executives, reveals a concerted push by Democratic candidates to secure the blessing of big business while they continue to take their swipes at corporate America on behalf of the little guy.

Even at this early stage of the primary race, the business endorsements of Clinton alone rival - in size, scope and prestige the list of CEOs publicly supporting the Kerry-Edwards ticket in the 2004 general election.

The more than 150 top executives who have raised money for Clinton represent such brand names as Anheuser-Busch (Charts, Fortune 500), Comcast (Charts), Estée Lauder, Palm (Charts), Sun Microsystems (Charts, Fortune 500) and Qualcomm (Charts, Fortune 500).

Venture capitalist James D. Robinson III, the former CEO of American Express and a longtime Republican, told Fortune he now supports Clinton for President, citing her "breadth of experience, especially on the international level, which is critical for going forward."

A difficult war tests loyalties among business leaders, just as it does among other voters, who increasingly identify themselves as Democrats. But Iraq is only one factor behind this year's wide-open race for business support. With the scandals of the early part of the decade behind them, corporate leaders are once again emerging as opinion leaders - not only speaking out on such issues as health care, taxes and the environment, but calling for government action.

"This has been an important period for businesses of all sizes," Clinton told Fortune. "They really can't control health-care costs." And Clinton's Senate tenure has been a significant antidote to her controversial stint as a First Lady proposing health-care reform, which critics decried as an attempt to nationalize medicine. "There has been a real opportunity to know me and work with me," she says, "and to develop personal friendships."

Not to be discounted is that corporate America likes to bet on winners. Coming on the heels of the Democratic takeover of Congress, the party has a real shot at winning the White House. For Republican candidates, a sour political environment is only the beginning of the battle.
With several strong candidates and no clear front-runner, a business community that largely united behind George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 is now more fractured, with most major Bush donors still sitting on the sidelines. "Even in 2000, Bush was the presumptive nominee," notes longtime GOP fundraiser and Thayer Capital chairman Fred Malek. "Signing up with Bush was a no-brainer."

Business leaders can provide added heft to a candidate's fundraising efforts - the major candidates are expected to raise a record $1.4 billion in this race - but they also help a candidate's image branding. Democrat John Edwards, who offers sharp-edged populism, is a tougher sell to business. But Clinton and Obama view CEO support as a key part of their crossover appeal.

A roster of business endorsements "says to voters that you'll be strong on the economy," says Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe. Most of the top-tier candidates - Republican and Democrat - have made pilgrimages to the Business Roundtable's offices in Washington to pitch some 60 CEOs at a time.

Longtime Republican Harry Sloan, chief of MGM Studios, told Fortune he had been approached by Obama and Clinton, as well as supporters of second-tier candidates Christopher Dodd and Joseph Biden. But he's sticking with McCain, whom he calls "the most principled political leader of our generation."

Still, Sloan notes that McCain is a more difficult sell than in his 2000 run, when he even drew admirers from liberal-dominated Hollywood. Those days are over. "Because of the Iraq war and John's position on the war right now, the same people aren't prepared to fully support him," says Sloan. "And many haven't given money for that reason."

Despite Democratic inroads into the business community, the three top declared GOP candidates have long careers that give them connections to name-brand players. Former Massachusetts Governor Romney has used his deep roots in business to enlist the likes of Miami Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga and Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller, as well as Staples founder Tom Sternberg.

In Silicon Valley he counts on eBay CEO Meg Whitman and Next Solutions CEO Doug Wilson, while onetime colleagues like Bain & Co. founder William Bain, his former boss, stand by their man. "It's the strength of his leadership ability, his get-it-done attitude," says Marriott CEO Bill Marriott.

Giuliani's Wall Street support isn't as broad as that of fellow New Yorker Clinton, but he has culled important business support in Texas and elsewhere. Billionaire hedge fund manager T. Boone Pickens has raised nearly $1 million for the candidate. "In New York he cleaned up the city, ran Mafia convictions, then [handled] 9/11," Pickens says. Giuliani also has the support of Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks, billionaire investor Sid Bass, and superstar activist Carl Icahn.

McCain has won the backing of FedEx chief Fred Smith, Cisco CEO John Chambers, New York Stock Exchange chief John Thain, and Boston Scientific's Pete Nicholas. In contrast to the grass-roots conservative voters McCain is trying to woo in his primary battle, top executives applaud the Senator's willingness to work with Democrats on issues like immigration reform.

This year's scramble for the business seal of approval can make it hard for candidates to pin down a loyal commitment. Blackstone Group CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Amgen CEO Kevin Sharer have written checks to McCain - and to Romney. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg has donated to John McCain - but also to Clinton. Among Democrats, too, looks can be deceiving. Much attention was lavished on hedge funder Paul Tudor Jones's splashy May 19 fundraiser for Obama at his waterfront mansion in Greenwich, Conn. Less noticed was the $2,300 check he wrote to Giuliani just two months earlier.

David Geffen invited presidential prospect Michael Bloomberg to his Beverly Hills home June 19 for an intimate dinner - but he's formally supporting Obama. "I'd say 75 percent of the donor community in Hollywood has given to multiple candidates," says Andy Spahn, longtime political advisor to top entertainment figures. "For these people $2,300 [the legal cap on donations] is not a stretch."

Regardless of their personal feelings, many CEOs avoid publicly aligning themselves with a candidate, concerned about offending boards, employees and customers.

"If you're a consumer products company and you get your head up too high, you're going to alienate some customers," notes Malek. "Even if you produce industrial products - there are customers who are Democratic and customers who are Republican."

But FedEx CEO Smith insists that his personal support for McCain aligns with his company's interest in reducing America's dependence on foreign oil and maintaining a robust free-trade stance. "Those would be two of the issues that loom very large in this election that would be directly on point with FedEx's business interests," he told Fortune. Likewise, supporters of Democratic candidates say their companies would benefit from federal action to reform the health-care system.

When I told a leading GOP fundraiser the news that John Mack had thrown his weight behind Clinton, she was stunned. "You're kidding me, right?" (Actually she expressed the sentiment more graphically.) Says GOP veteran Malek, a McCain supporter: "It concerns me that any solid-thinking top businessperson would go the Democratic route, given the party's liberal ideology."

Clinton's critics say a close reading of her Senate record should give business leaders pause. The Chamber of Commerce estimated that she voted with that group's position 45.8 percent of the time; for the National Association of Manufacturers, it was 16 percent in the last Congress. Still, notes a conservative investment banker, "I don't think Hillary Clinton scares people the way she did in the '90s." And that gives her an opening with former opponents.

Jeffrey Volk, global head of Citigroup's agency and trust business, was with his wife and freshman daughter at Tulane University when Hurricane Katrina struck. (Like others interviewed for this story, Volk stressed that his political views are personal and not his firm's.) The family was stranded in a hotel room, fearful - like others - as power faltered, water levels rose and chaos engulfed New Orleans. His many efforts to reach Washington officials ended in a black hole of automated voicemail.

That was when this lifelong Republican called his home-state Senator's office. The Clinton staffer who took his case wasn't able to produce an airlift for stranded New Yorkers and others, as Volk requested, but he did call the family several times a day to check on them. "When I was in harm's way, her office was there to help me and my family," Volk says.

When he returned to New York, Volk made it a point to meet Clinton at a small event at the home of a mutual friend in White Plains. He went there simply to thank her, but at the end of a two-hour policy discussion, Volk - who once helped Ronald Reagan craft an economic platform - had decided he wanted to support her.

What converted him: "Her knowledge of issues, the tradeoffs you have to make for a pragmatic policy, her grasp of details on subjects ranging from fiscal policy to taxes and trade."

But Clinton doesn't always go over with business executives - especially outside Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. Obama Democrats insist that Clinton remains a polarizing figure, which gives their candidate - with his "let's all get along" theme book - his own opening in the business community.

Obama's inclusive style is often an easier sell to corporate leaders looking for someone with whom they can do business. Obama supporters say that while Clinton is relying on establishment Democratic players, they've tapped into a new pool of business leaders who weren't politically active before now. "That pool of people is vastly larger" than the usual suspects, says Boston Provident partner Orin Kramer, a leading Democratic figure in New Jersey.

Wall Street in particular began leaning Democratic in the 2006 congressional election, making it a ripe target for Obama and Clinton. Their GOP foes are bemused by the trend. "A lot of hedge fund managers and others who are younger don't remember when you had bad tax policy and how powerful the negative effects can be on the economy," says investor James Higgins, co-founder of the conservative Monday Meeting in Manhattan.

Indeed, on tax policy especially, most business leaders are out of sync with Democrats, who want to limit the Bush tax cuts, penalize companies that build plants overseas, and increase taxes on private equity and tax funds. Asked about this, Clinton's GOP business supporters say they have other priorities. Volk wants to see the federal budget balanced. Robinson wants healthcare and education policies that will improve America's competitiveness. Hillary Clinton says simply, "It's important not to have a tax discussion separate from [deciding] what are our goals."

For Clinton, there is an underlying tension between the candidate who can do business with business - and the candidate who must curry support from the party's left wing to win the nomination.

At a speech before grass-roots activists in Washington on June 20, she was booed by antiwar activists but applauded when she took corporate America to task. Deriding the country's "highest concentration of wealth ... since 1929," she declared,"Let's start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare! Enough with the golden parachutes! And enough with the tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. We have to make sure there is not a single benefit they would get for doing that."
Five hours later she was on the phone with Fortune - and her tone was far more measured. Asked how she could balance an appeal to business with that sharp rhetoric, the Senator answered, "To me it's about getting back into balance. It's the search for that balance that's appealing to a lot of business leaders. They know I'm trying to figure out how we can have shared prosperity." As any CEO can tell you, it ain't as easy as it sounds.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Through persistence and patience, Clinton has assembled what is probably the broadest CEO support among the candidates, ranging from Wall Street to Hollywood.

John Mack CEO, Morgan Stanley Winning over the longtime Republican sent a signal about Clinton's clout on Wall Street.

Sheryl Sandberg VP, global online sales, Google "I was always hoping she'd run for President. She's uniquely qualified."

Steve Rattner Managing principal, Quadrangle Group "I've been a longtime supporter of the Clintons. I knew I'd end up in her camp."

Steven Spielberg Co-founder, DreamWorks The mogul co-hosted a fundraiser at the home of News Corp. president Peter Chernin.

Haim Saban CEO, Saban Capital Group "I endorsed Hillary before Hillary decided to endorse herself. I'm on a mission."

James D. Robinson III General partner, RRE Ventures The former AmEx CEO likes her "breadth of experience, especially on the international level."

Rudolph Giuliani

The former New York City mayor has built a team of fundraisers he has known since early in his career, but his support on Wall Street suffers a bit from lingering feelings that he was overzealous as a prosecutor.

Carl Icahn Billionaire investor and activist "Republicans have to pick the candidate most likely to beat Hillary Clinton. Rudy is the one."

T. Boone Pickens Founder, BP Capital hedge fund "Every time they rang the bell, the guy was there. He finished every fight."

Paul Singer Founder, Elliott Assoc. hedge fund "I believe the mayor is the strongest and most conservative candidate in the race."

Bill Simon Venture capitalist "When you're the mayor of New York, you do have a foreign policy."

James Turley CEO, Ernst & Young Besides creating a business alliance with Giuliani in 2002, Turley is a fundraiser.

Randy Levine President, New York Yankees "He did an outstanding job during and after 9/11. Overtime he's become a great leader."

Barack Obama

The Illinois Senator has a solid base of business support in Chicago but has also fared well with Hollywood media moguls and has aggressively moved into Clinton's turf among East Coast financiers.

Oprah Winfrey Founder, Harpo Productions Her endorsement of Obama was the first ever forthe billionaire media powerhouse.

Penny Pritzker Chairman, Classic Residence by Hyatt "I've watched him dialogue with CEOs. Heads are nodding, people are excited."

David Geffen Co-founder, DreamWorks He endorsed Obama - but first took a public swipe at his old friends, the Clintons.

Jeffrey Katzenberg Co-founder, DreamWorks "His sense of right and wrong, what's just and fair, is what's needed for these times."

James S. Crown President, Henry Crown & Co. The investor says his family, one of Chicago's wealthiest, "is solidly behind" the candidate.

Orin Kramer General partner, Boston Provident "We're tapping into people in business who haven't been involved in the process."

Mitt Romney

Romney has accumulated an impressive business lineup just by courting the "low-hanging fruit," as Bill Marriott puts it, of friends and associates from private equity, Boston, and the Mormon community.
Bill Marriott CEO, Marriott International Tapping his deep Rolodex in the hotel industry. "People like what he did with Massachusetts."

David Neeleman Founder and former CEO, JetBlue Trying to bring Mitt into the middle ground. "I think he's moderate in a lot of ways."

Bill Bain Founder, Bain & Co. Über-consultant and longtime mentor. "Mitt understands why companies decide to invest."

Meg Whitman CEO, eBay Serves as campaign chair. "Democrat or Republican, he would hire the right people."

Wayne Huizenga Owner, Miami Dolphins Courted by Rudy, but likes Mitt's "conservative principles, like smaller government."

Bill Harrison Former CEO, J.P. Morgan Chase Hosts Greenwich, Conn., and New York City events. "Mitt connects unbelievably well with people."

John Edwards

As a former trial lawyer campaigning on a pro-union platform, Edwards is not the go-to guy for big business. Yet he has important allies, including many at a hedge fund where he once consulted.

James Sinegal Co-founder and CEO, Costco stores The lifelong Democrat threw his support behind Edwards after hearing his plans on health care.

Wesley Edens CEO, Fortress Investment Group About 100 of the secretive financier's employees have donated to Edwards's campaign.

Leo Hindery Chairman, InterMed Advisors Edwards has made the former cable-TV magnate his senior economic advisor.

Howard Schultz Chairman, Starbucks The coffee mogul hosted a fundraiser at his Seattle home for about 150 potential donors.

Andy Rappaport Venture capitalist, August Capital "I believe that if the 2004 ticket had been reversed, John Kerry would be Vice President today."

Jason Flom CEO, Capitol Music Group Flom has sought support for Edwards within the music industry by hosting fundraisers.

John McCain

The Senator from Arizona has gone head-to-head with the Senator from New York to win Wall Street support. A key ally is Lew Eisenberg, former chief of the Port Authority and powerful Bush fundraiser.

Fred Smith Founder and CEO, FedEx "He does what he thinks is right, The most current example is the immigration issue."

James B.Lee Jr. Chairman, J.P. Morgan Chase Investment Bank This captain of Wal I Street is a national co-chair of the campaign.

David Pottruck CEO, Red Eagle Ventures "He's not afraid to do the hard things. He has the character and the energy and commitment."

James Chambers CEO, Cisco Systems "He understands the value that technology contributes to economic prosperity."

John Thain CEO, NYSE Euronext Another campaign co-chair, he's working with Lee to make inroads on Clinton's turf.

Harry Sloan CEO, MGM movie studio "I made the decision to support him before there were any other candidates."

Full disclosure: Writer Nina Easton's husband is a consultant to the McCain campaign.

Reporter associates: Telis Demos, Joan L. Levinstein, Jenny Mero and Christopher Tkaczyk
From the July 9, 2007 issue



Find this article at: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm

50 Points of Freedom

by Charles Heller

1) You cannot impose freedom, but you can restrain tyranny. It is only through constitutionally limited government that you can keep law from becoming the will of those who have the power to enforce it.

2) You cannot simultaneously advocate for freedom and abdicate responsibility.

3) No one who understands history will ever trust a government. Evil almost always moves just below the speed of notice.

4) More attention in America is paid to automotive choice and cable programming than to freedom. There will never be another revolution in the U.S. as long as there is beer and cable television. The only way to get most people to care about an issue is to kick them in the solar Lexus of their wallet.

5) The founding fathers had another name for "gridlock" - they called it "checks and balances." Gridlock = freedom.

6) The purpose of voting is to endorse a pre-ordained result with the patina

of legitimacy.

7) Eternal vigilance requires the study of great books.

8) You do not want to live under efficient government. Hitler's trains ran on time, but many of them went to the gas chambers.

9) Today we have sickle cell government growth, which has led to a metastasis of government. We have statestatic governance. If the masters do not restrain their servant government within constitutional bounds, they will ever toil at the capstan of collectivism at the behest of bureaucratic buffoons.

10) Ask not, what government can do for the needy. Ask what the individual could do for them if the thieving hand of government were not so deep in his pocket. Charity should be an individual effort, not a group effort.That is collectivism and that depends on theft (taxes).

11) Do not pray for easier times - pray for greater abilities.

12) Force and violence are not equivalent. Force is the amount of energy

necessary to produce a desired result. Violence is an excessive use of that force. Shooting someone is not necessarily an act of violence if it is done as a last resort of self defense against deadly aggression.

13) If your highest value is peace, you will give anything to get there. One of the first things that is usually sacrificed to get there is freedom. If your highest value is freedom, you are then willing to use force if necessary to preserve it. Peace then becomes a byproduct of the strength of being willing to fight for worthy convictions. This requires the notion of being willing to give war a chance.

14) Pray for peace. Dress for war. You never make progress towards peace by collectivizing security. The only way you ever make progress towards peace is by having the individual citizens of the country (those who are able-bodied) take full and individual responsibility for the security of a nation. And that is called the militia.

15) Stupidity should be painful. Failure to make it so encourages stupidity.

16) Asking permission to use what you own is a stupid waste. (See #15)

17) Government will ALWAYS commit the acts that aggrandize to itself the greatest control, no matter what the economic or social cost. This will ALWAYS be touted as a benefit.

18) Freedom is usually defined by government as a "loophole." You have to become an engaged citizen, not a customer of government services.

19) Bureaucracy is a creature of hermaphroditic stimulation.

20) Freedom isn't free, but it's a lot cheaper than slavery. Freedom is the first true blood sport.

21) Slavery requires one party to be bound by each end of the shackles.

22) Nothing is so pathetic as those who cling to an idea whose time has come - and left.

23) Freedom does not exist on a left - right continuum. If the jackboot of government is on your throat, what matter if it is the left or right boot? You are either marching towards freedom or tyranny, and if you are standing still then you are sliding backwards toward the latter.

24) The more willing and fit you are to use force, the less likely you will have to do so to keep peace, and your rights. The less you are willing to use lawful force,the greater will be your exposure to attack. If you look like food, you will be eaten. Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who don't.

25) Complaining bears with it the responsibility to compliment when things go right. If all you do is complain, you become bitter.

26) Human nature has not changed greatly in thousands of years.

27) The fact that you cannot grasp the infinite mind does not detract from its infinity.

28) We should never let what we don't have stop us from using what we do have.

29) Schools today teach that self esteem is more important than result. There is a word for feeling good about poor performance: delusion. Self esteem is an undefinable quantity. Self respect that comes from accomplishment is priceless.

30) In any compromise with evil, only good stands to lose.

31) Written goals greatly increase the possibility of their attainment.

32) Skill at arms requires discipline and practice. So does almost everything else, so firearms are a great place to start. A gun is used as a tool of situational dominance.

33) Any government that denies its citizens the means of self defense need not be obeyed or financially subsidized.

34) If you believe in the concept that "tyranny could never happen here," remember that Hitler was democratically elected. Government is our tool and it is our job to keep it well protected, sharpened, and in line.

35) Legal and lawful are not the same. Everything Hitler did was legal. After all, he made the laws.

36) There is no law requiring you to talk to any agent of government. All contacts with agents of any authority should be electronically recorded and documented.

37) You should never attribute to conspiracy what you can put off to malfeasance.

38) The installation of idiot proof technologies has only succeeded in the universe's production of more idiots. So far, the universe is winning.

39) The highest and best use of a television is at the 50 yard line on a firing range with .30 caliber.

40) Freedom requires the maintenance of certain tools. Among them are firearms, a multi-tool which is ALWAYS carried, and a computer.

41) Never in the history of man was there a genocide that was not preceededby disarmament of the victims. It CAN happen here.

42) People who are willing to hurt others will ALWAYS acquire the means to do so.

43) Civility fosters a fertile environment for freedom.

44) Econonics is NOT a zero sum game. As with physics, for every action, there is an equal and usually opposite reaction..

45) Freedom is a zero sum game in a one to one relationship with authority. You cannot effectively govern a free people by the same standards you would criminal conduct.

46) People will always do what is in their own best interest. Any rules, regulations, or policies that thwart the individual's interest will always cause unintended consequences. Enlightened self interest is the best reason to do anything.

47) Government's authority is only what its citizens cede to it. It therefore cannot possess any powers that the individual does not have, or he could not have given them to government.

48) The default setting on liberty is to the individual. If said individual is not actively furthering the cause of liberty in some way, he or she, by default, is subtracting from it. Activism is a long, slow ascent into principle, not a rapid parry and thrust into victory. Be not frustrated but rejoice in every discomfort of the anti-freedomists.

49) Every attempt to control human conduct will cause unintended consequences.

50) Freedom is messy. It rarely fits our picture, but that's the great part - It fits the other guy's picture. The other side of the coin of freedom is responsibility. Remember to flip that coin as necessary so as not to mess up the freedom of others.

http://libertywatchradio.com/essays