valenzuelaclan

4575 DAYS AGO ANOTHER MIRACLE HAPPEN, THE BIRTH OF CRIST,  I MEAN CRISTIAN.  THIS WAS A UNIQUE EVENT IN HISTORY AS NO OTHER CRISTIAN HAS EVER BEEN BORN SINCE, UNLESS YOUR A BORN AGAIN CRISTIAN!!!!   wHICH i AM, FOR THE NAME IS IN MY NAME, HIDDEN FROM THE PROPHANE AND KNOWN ONLY TO THE INITIATES.  bUT,  ------------FELIZE CUMLEANOS, HAPPY BIRTHDAY YOUR NOW 15 YEARS OLD!!!!  whOO, IT WAS JUST YESTERDAY i SAW YOU WALK FOR THE FIRST TIME.  wELL WELL, 15TEEN, LET THE GIRLS FLOW, AND WHEN YOU BELLY IS FULL, THROW YOUR OLD BROTHER SOME SCRAPES!!  yA, I KNEW YOU WOULD.  DON'T GET TOO CRAZY!!!

LOVE ANDRES VALENZUELA AND CAROLINE KENT.

MOSCOW. (Lt.-Gen. Gennady Yevstafiyev (Ret.), Foreign Intelligence Service, for RIA Novosti)

The Iranian authorities and elite are busy transferring their bank accounts from Europe to Asia, or to Switzerland, whose territory is usually outside sanctions. These are multi-billion sums. Many analysts see this as Tehran's precaution ahead of a potential armed clash with the U.S. and its allies, which may take place if the attempt to settle the situation around Iran's nuclear program falls through.

Apparently, the Iranians have learnt their own lessons well and remember the sad experience of neighboring Iraq, which was attacked for its alleged attempt to hide the weapons of mass destruction from the world community.

For all the differences between the two regimes and their political and economic potentialities the Washington-drafted plan of action against Iran is strangely similar to the U.S. scenario for Iraq. But there are some indications that the U.S. strategists have lost some of their confidence since the cruel lesson in Iraq. This fact creates an additional chance for a diplomatic settlement of the problem.

According to U.S. political tradition, George W. Bush is an outgoing president, a lame duck. It would seem nothing should prevent him from being totally reckless in foreign policy, except for a natural desire to go down in history with a more positive image. The problem is that his entourage is not motivated to make a positive contribution to history. To the contrary, it is obsessed with a messianic idea to prove single-handed the prevailing military force of the U.S. super power, and its readiness to bear the heavy cross of the only propagator of American democracy, the only true democracy in the world.

It is this entourage that sets the pace of the attempts to step up the preparations for a strike against the Iranian regime. Clearly, the latter is no bargain either to professional diplomats or international officials who are trying to find a compromise on the Iranian nuclear problem.

U.S. long-term goals in Iran are obvious: to engineer the downfall of the current regime, establish control over Iran's oil and gas, and use its territory as the shortest route for the U.S.-controlled transportation of hydrocarbons from the regions of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea bypassing Russia and China. This is not to mention Iran's intransient military and strategic significance.

It is not yet clear what long-term goals are in the minds of the Iranian leaders, whose positions are far from flexible. Of course, for starters, they would like to have nuclear weapons like their second-rate neighbor Pakistan. Incidentally, it was the U.S., a vigorous fighter for the non-proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction, that allowed Pakistan to get the bomb without a problem. Now it is making declarations of love to its enemy India.

The ayatollahs believe that nuclear weapons would make Iran invulnerable to foreign pressure, and turn it into the number one nation of the Persian Gulf. Well-known Swedish diplomat Rolf Ekeus thinks that the Iranian nuclear program is not anti-Western, but was a response to Saddam Hussein's nuclear bid. But now that Saddam is no longer in the picture, and that Tehran has declared that its nuclear program is exclusively civilian, why repeat all these loud statements about the need to erase Israel like Carthage from the face of the Earth? Why make them sound as if Tehran already has nuclear weapons? It seems that if Tehran's policy were peaceful and well balanced, it would bring it many more benefits and allies against the background of the aggressive line adopted by the U.S., and would rule out any military initiatives.

In the absence of this line anything may happen; all the more so if the Americans or Israelis decide to provoke some particularly malicious act of terror in the Middle East through their local agents (Israel has more of them than the U.S.), and blame it on the verbose ideologists from Tehran.

The mentality of the current U.S. Administration officials suggests the following tentative scenario. First, they will persuade the world that the talks with Iran are a thing of the past, and that priority should be given to sanctions against it. A Security Council resolution on the imposition of any sanctions will be a key element. Once adopted, the sanctions will be followed by a chain of consistent steps, which, regardless of what the world might think, would result in the use of military force to overthrow the current regime.

But this far from simple task requires a lot of effort. To begin with, it is necessary to consolidate the Western alliance. It seems that although British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said more than once that military solution is unthinkable, Prime Minister Tony Blair is, as usual, in Mr. Bush's pocket, and already taking part in drafting a plan of joint action as a junior partner. It may be that the Brits have been told to deal with the Shiites in Iraq because without at least some appeasement of this group it will be very difficult to guarantee success in the operation against Iran, which may use the Shiite lever any time for an asymmetrical but very painful response. Incidentally, this is evidence of the fact that the second-stage task - Iran's complete isolation - is far from being fulfilled. Therefore, now the focus of attention is still on exerting heavy psychological pressure on Iran, as well as on those countries, which do not give the U.S. complete carte blanche.

Last January the Director of the U.S. National Intelligence John Negroponte appointed Ms. S. Leslie Ireland as the Mission Manager for Iran. She was involved in intelligence in the Middle East for more than 20 years. It is easy to see what this mission is all about. Obviously, some Gulf nations already have their own Gateway, which became so infamous during the effort of the Security Council Special Commission to disarm Iraq. Moreover, Joseph Sirinsione, a major expert on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, admitted that he was not right when he thought that the Bush Administration was not going to deal a military blow at Iran. Now he is sure that it will strike.

When told that the Iranians have many underground nuclear and military installations, the Pentagon proudly responds that it is already testing 700-ton precision bombs designed to destroy facilities (bunkers and depots) deep underground.

The U.S. has inspired the leak that the Iranian rulers are trying to persuade Turkmenbashi to let them stay in Turkmenistan during hostilities. Even the Pentagon's latest attack on Russian security services for alleged transfer of information about a future U.S. aggression to Iraq, is obviously aimed at creating a political atmosphere where nobody would even think of backing Tehran.

And what about a resolution submitted to the Senate in early 2006 with the demand of a ban (to be imposed by whom?) on Russian and Chinese arms supplies to Iran?

And what to do about Ukraine, which has ostensibly supplied Iran with 250 nuclear charges? What kind of an Orange ally is it?!

In general, the Americans have started playing the bear, like they did in Iraq.

Needless to say, Condoleezza Rice would like Iran to surrender, but this seems to be wishful thinking. Tehran has its own hawks. So the remaining options are to engineer a coup, preferably velvet, or to go for a blitz-intervention, or a completely disarming sudden attack.

It is clear that the Administration will try to minimize its military casualties, and will focus on the use of cruise missiles, and pilotless reconnaissance and assault aircraft. This is exactly why the Iranian hawks defiantly demonstrated their military arsenal not long ago. But they will fight the U.S. with other instruments, and their asymmetrical response may cost Washington dearly. Its allies will pay even more.

The situation is developing in fits and starts with monthly intervals. One more moment of truth is approaching today. The Iranians took a step when their Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced at the disarmament conference on March 30 Tehran's readiness to consider the formation of regional uranium-enrichment consortiums where all interested parties will take an equal part. Apparently, it is necessary to quickly analyze this step. What is it - a proposal of compromise, or an attempt to gain time? Meanwhile, another IAEA inspection is at work in Iran (all in all, IAEA inspectors have already spent 1,700 working inspection days in Iran, but the evidence of its involvement in the military program is not yet there). Let's repeat: the world sees these tricks as clumsy. However, the promotion by the Bush Administration of its ideas at home has produced results - the polls have shown a steady increase in the number of people who are ready to accept the use of any military force against Iran. As of March 15, their number was well over 55%. Continuous advocacy of even the most unjustified demands works wonders, as the Third Reich proved a long time ago.

In summary, the combined state and federal debt of the United States now stands at $14 trillion. The United States, the world's largest creditor nation when Ronald Reagan took office, is now the world's largest debtor nation. The federal debt has doubled in the last 8 years, during what is reported to the American people as being a record setting economic boom. During this same supposed economic boom, the federal government looted your social security trust fund for another 3/4 of a trillion dollars to balance the books.

A serious doubt exists as to whether this huge debt and its crushing interest payments ($60,000 per taxpayer since 1960) are really the responsibility of the taxpayers. Considering that the law under which this debt was incurred was voted into law before most of us were born, it's clear that the taxpayers have never really had a choice in the matter. Certainly the young people of today, not yet old enough to vote, have had no choice regarding the continuing payment of interest charges for a debt not of their making. To hand such a huge debt to our children and order them to pay it is indentured servitude at best, outright slavery at worst. No valid argument exists as to why children not yet old enough to vote are obliged to pay the debts of reckless government officials who held office before these children were born. The government decides that children shall be slaves to the debt, so slaves they shall be (until some courageous parents decide to put a stop to it).

Virtually every argument coming from those who would convince us to go on parting with our hard-earned money to pay this massive and impossible debt amounts to a claim that we always have the choice to vote for politicians who will somehow change things, and that the election of a particular candidate amounts to approval of his or her policies. Put simply, the fact that the public voted for Bill Clinton amounts to permission by the public for him to run the federal government deeper into debt and loot our retirement money, or so goes the theory.

One can easily challenge the logic behind such a claim. If, after all, the only candidates on the ballot intend to borrow more money, does that mean the voters approve of the eventual loans? Does the fact that Hitler won his election prove that all Germans approved of the death camps?

But beyond that simple fallacy lies a greater issue, one that until now has never been fully and properly examined. And that is whether the public really voted for those who are in power at all. Are our elections truly fair, or are they simply an illusion that the public approves of whatever despot has cheated his or her way to power.

Cuba is a good example. It's now generally acknowledged by historians that the elections which kept Batista in power were rigged. The CIA is known to have rigged elections in numerous countries around the world, to put in governments friendly to American interest, often detrimental to the people of those nations (often leading to revolution). A search through the news reports of elections around the world shows that a truly fair and honest election is indeed a rarity. It is therefore naive (not to mention racist) to start out assuming American elections are honest simply because we are Americans.

Are the elections in the United States fair and honest? A review of the facts is far less than reassuring.

Since 1964, right after John F. Kennedy was assassinated, vote tabulation for national elections has been handled not by the government, but by a private company lacking any official oversight at all. This company, which changes its name on a regular basis, is currently called "Voters News Service" and is located in New York City. This company is owned by a consortium of TV networks and wire services, which are in turn controlled by the CIA through its Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The TV networks will make a great show of being "first with the election results", but in reality all of them rely on the numbers sent to them by VNS, while seldom acknowledging its existence during the election coverage.

This is the voting process most in use in America today. A voter punches a card in the voting booth. That card is run through a computer at the local voting center, then that computer contacts computers at Voters News Service, or the precinct official telephones the numbers the computer shows him to Voters News Service, which then announces the results via the networks. Poll watchers are allowed to watch the voting booths, to guard against polling place electioneering, but in most precincts, the actual counting of the ballots is concealed from the public, and nobody is allowed to see inside the voting machines, or review the computer software that counts the ballots. 70% of all votes in America are counted by machine, and nobody, not private citizen, not local election official, nobody, is allowed to examine how it all works. The accuracy tests conducted on the voting machines before and after the actual election are utterly worthless, as they cannot detect fraud designed to fool the accuracy test itself. In 1988, when voting machines in Illinois were tested with tens of thousands of ballots instead of the few dozen normally used for the accuracy test, over 1/4 of the machines which had passed the standard accuracy test were found to have mistabulated the larger test vote results!

While researching the book, "VOTESCAM", the Collier brothers actually managed to videotape members of the League of Women voters forging ballots, and found hard evidence that Shouptronics and Printomatic vote machines were rigged in the Dade County Elections. In the Shouptronics, the wheels of the mechanical counters were shaved to cause miscounts. In the Printomatic machines, a malfunction revealed that the paper tape with the voting results had been pre-printed before the voting even started! The Colliers, along with attorney Ellis Rubin, handed the evidence to the assistant State Attorney for Florida. Sadly, that assistant State Attorney was Janet Reno, who in a pattern we have all become too familier with, killed the investigation. 60 Minutes taped a segment on the Dade County Vote Fraud, but never aired it.

Mandatory voter registration laws, such as "Motor voter" have been a boon to election fraud, generating registered voters who don't vote and whose names may be used to obtain absentee ballots. In the California election that unseated Bob Dornan following his efforts to investigate the Clinton White House, canvassers discovered that nearly half of the names registered to vote in the GOP election from 7 precincts simply did not exist. The California Attorney General's office was informed by the precinct worker, but again nothing was done. In 1998, almost 20,000 fraudulent voter registrations were discovered on the voting rolls, but were allowed to remain on the excuse that their removal in time for the election would cost too much!

The evidence for massive vote fraud in the United States uncovered by the Voting Integrity Project and organizations like it are ignored by the government, which has obviously been the beneficiary of such chicanery, and by the media, which is complicit in the fraud. When vote fraud was suspected in the 1996 Arizona Primary (the one that ended Pat Buchanon's winning streak after New Hampshire), the Arizona legislature passed a special law forbidding a recount for that one primary election only! When the Miami Magazine ran a story on the Dade County Vote Fraud, the magazine was purchased just one month later by the editor of the Miami News, Sylvan Meyer, who ordered that no further stories on vote fraud be published. When precinct workers in the 1974 Dade County elections discovered that the voting machines they were using were rigged, they walked off the job and refused to certify the election process. Police and fire fighters took over the polling duties. The next day, the Miami Herald reported the walk out, but not the reason. When the precinct workers went to the media to report the election rigging, the media ignored them. So did the local attorney general. So did the FBI. Citizens who tried to observe the next election were arrested.

Typical of the horror stories associated with the media-owned Voters News Service is what happened in Dubuque County Iowa during the 1996 Caucuses. The county's 41 precincts met in 41 classrooms at two high schools and voted on old fashioned paper ballots, which were then counted in full view of all present (including representatives of the candidates), and the results posted for all to see and verify. The vote totals were then phoned directly into Voters News Service by the county chairman, again in full view of all participants that night. Buchanon won the county by a wide margin, garnering 870 votes. By next morning, Voters News Service had dropped Buchanon's vote total for that county down to 757 votes, a 13% drop. Buchanon lost Iowa by a much smaller margin than 13%.

The Iowa state GOP claimed it could do nothing about the problem; they were "in VNS' hands". VNS, despite the paper ballots proving Buchanon's 870 votes, refused to admit error and refused to change the results for the county. Needless to say, the question of whether Buchanon had had 13% of his votes shaved off in other Iowa counties, ones in which computerized vote machines meant there was no audit trail to check, was ignored. The fact that an obviously fraudulent vote had made it all the way through the system to be reported on national television was also ignored by the media. (Iowa is the state, it should be noted, where a columnist for Salon magazine was charged with vote fraud.)

The complicity by the law enforcement machinery of this nation is astounding. In one election in Boston, a judge declared 968 ballots which had been declared "blank" due to multiple punches to be valid, arbitrarily assigning most of the disputed votes to the incumbent candidate, thereby reversing his defeat. In a computer vote fraud case in West Virginia, an expert witness testifying for the plaintiff sat down at a CES voting machine provided by the defendants, studied it for a while, then with a single ballot card added 10,000 votes to one of the fictional candidates. The judge refused to allow the jury to see the demonstration and the charges were eventually dropped.

Only three states, California, Florida, and Michigan, have laws requiring that the voting machine source code be placed in escrow should it need to be examined after an election. None of those states have any means to verify that the source code placed in escrow is in fact the origin of the compiled code running on the machines election night, and in Michigan, the escrow is simply handled by the voting machine company itself with no overview by a state agency or public interest group.

All the voting machines used in the United States come from just three companies. The Presidents of two of them have been convicted of vote fraud and yet all state governments continue to do business (at very steep fees) with just these three companies. The largest of the three companies has direct access to 50% of the nation's votes. Nobody is allowed to inspect the machines, or watch as the vote totals are accumulated and counted, and there is no audit trail anywhere along the path from the voting machine to Voter's News Service, the private media-owned company that without any official oversight, tells us all what the election results are.

Most states have now passed laws requiring a challenge to election results to be filed within a few weeks of the election, far too short a time for anyone to properly determine if such a challenge is warranted.

Despite such an obvious inhibition, a Democrat who lost a legislative seat in the 1998 Hawaiian election did file a challenge, claiming there was vote fraud. A quick audit showed that vote fraud involving absentee ballots had indeed occurred, but mostly by the Democrat; who had cheated, but not enough to win. This scandal triggered public questions about several races, including that of the Democratic Governor, Ben Cayutano, who had been trailing his Republican challenger all during the election night, only to have a sudden surge of votes at the last second push him over the top. The governor offered to over-ride the state's two week filing deadline for election challenges and allow a full recount, then back-pedaled and made a full recount contingent on a "pre-audit". The "pre-audit" was assigned to the company which had run the election, along with a warning that if it turned out the election was flawed, their final payment would be withheld by the State of Hawaii. Needless to say the pre-audit found no errors in the election, and despite the urging of the Voter Integrity Project (which was conducting its own investigation) the full recount was canceled. The voting company, ES&S was again been awarded the voting contract for the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections, without any open bidding.

Who chooses what government we live under? Those who cast the votes, or as Stalin observed, those who count them? Do We The People pick those who govern us, or does a private company, owned by the CIA controlled media, and operating without any public oversight? Have We The People consented by vote to bear the $14 trillion burden of a government's reckless fiscal policy, or was that consent and that vote fraudulently obtained?

Just think about all it really means if the elections are being rigged on a massive scale.

It means that the contract between ruler and ruled is broken. The government does not govern with the consent of the governed, it rules by treachery and deception. The crown it wears is a stolen one, usurped from the people by three voting machine companies and one media owned results-announcer totally beyond review and reproach.

So, now we come back to the issue of government debt and who is really responsible for it. If, as appears to be the case, our elections are routinely being rigged, then it cannot be argued that We The People either chose, or approved of, those officials who borrowed trillions of dollars without our permission and sought to enslave us to that debt.

In an atmosphere of doubt about the validity of the voting process, it cannot be assumed that the American people have actually voted for or approved of any of the government's actions and policies for the last 35 years. That includes a couple of wars and some $14 trillion in debt, and the $60,000 in interest payments alone each taxpayer has had to fork over since the 60s.

In light of the numerous incidents of vote fraud uncovered through the years and the quite obvious stonewall on the subject by the officials who benefit from rigged elections and the media that at least helps in the rigging, it is dangerous to assume that American elections are honest. The burden of proof must lie with VNS and the voting machine companies to prove their honesty.

In an atmosphere of doubt about the validity of the voting process, it appears that the entire voting process is a sham, a trick to fool the American people into accepting whatever is done to them by creating the illusion that the people somehow voted for and approved of whatever is being done. That's how Batista fooled the Cuban people. That's how the USSR fooled the Soviet citizens. And that's how the American government fools us.

Do We The People owe that $14 trillion? No, we do not. It was borrowed without our permission. No citizen agreed to repay that money.

Those government officials who borrowed that money and intend that We The People should be forced to repay it can no longer do so on the assumption that they rule with the consent of those who vote.

The best that can be said is that they rule with the consent of those who count the vote.