DaniMartExtras, Too


REAL NEWS June 14, 2012

Posted by Xaniel777 on June 13, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : June 14, 2012


U.S.-Israeli War Against Syria Moves To The Next Stage: A Media Coup

From InfoWars.com

Saman Mohammadi
June 12, 2012

Patriotic Syrians demonstrate in the streets in support of their country, which is under attack from the U.S. and Israel.

The U.S., NATO, Saudi Arabia, and Israel continue to stir up trouble in Syria to get a larger war going in the region. It is now being reported that the Obama administration wants to impose an illegal no-fly zone on Syria.

Paul Joseph Watson breaks down this latest development in his article, “Report: Obama Prepares Air Strikes On Syria”:

“The likelihood of military intervention has been brought forward by reports that opposition rebels are planning to use chemical weapons and then blame the atrocity on Assad’s regime.


Rebels attempted to stage a similar ‘false flag’ recently when British Channel 4 reporter Alex Thomson was purposefully led by rebels into a trap whereby it was hoped he would be killed by government troops and his death used as a propaganda stunt.


Hostility towards Syria from the international community has intensified in recent weeks, particularly after the recent massacre in Houla which was blamed on Assad’s forces despite the fact that eyewitnesses in Houla said opposition rebels were responsible for the slaughter, which killed 108 people – mostly women and children.”

In the past year, Syria has seen a massive infusion of arms and terrorists from outside its borders.

At the same time, the U.S. has attempted to manipulate world public opinion and exploit the chaos it unleashed in Syria.

Washington’s goal is to build up an international consensus to carry out a larger military operation against the Assad government under the cover of a “humanitarian intervention.”

So far, that consensus has been lacking because the case for a military solution is based on total lies and U.S.-Israeli war propaganda, much of which has been repudiated by evidence gathered by independent journalists and eyewitnesses on the ground in Syria.

The cries for a NATO intervention in Syria ring hollow since NATO is the party that is causing the chaos and sponsoring the terrorists who are behind senseless massacres of Syrians.

American journalist Stephen Lendman says Syria is a victim of imperialist aggression and that its government has been on Washington’s sights for quite some time.


“There is no question this is a Washington-orchestrated war. It is a low-level war to the extent that NATO has not gotten directly involved. But it is exactly what happened in Libya last year.

An insurgency began; Washington orchestrated it; insurgents were recruited; they were funded; they were armed; they were US special forces, British special forces, CIA, MI6, Qatari special forces.

They are in Syria now; they are directing these massacres, these killings. They are funding, they are training; they are picking targets; they are leading these dead squad games to places like Houla [and] Takiba.

They are picking up who to slaughter. They go after pro-Assad loyalists.

You always have to ask, when terrible incidents occur, whether it is car bombings, whether it is massacres of civilians, cui bono, who benefits? Assad gets nothing from this.

Only the opposition gains. Assad is the victim. The victim is being blamed for the perpetrator’s crimes.

But again make no mistake. The nexus of this struggle emanates from Washington, doesn’t matter whether it is Obama, [former US President] George Bush or anybody else.

Syria, and other regional countries, have been targeted for regime change for years, at least a decade.

It was only the question when each one would come up. Syria’s turn came up and violence has been raging since early last year.”

Syria’s national independence and social unity are threats to the U.S.-Israeli empire of genocide.

The cabal of war criminals in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv are using the sectarian card in Syria to its maximum effect.

The CFR and other globalist-imperialist organizations that aim to split Syria along ethnic and religious lines are pushing the false narrative that Syria is in a civil war and innocent Syrians are being massacred by their government.

These are lies.

II. A Media Coup In The Making In Syria?

French journalist Thierry Meyssan says NATO is secretly planning a major psyop campaign against Syria with the triple aim of pushing Assad out, emboldening the foreign-backed terrorists in Syria, and weakening the psyche of the Syrian people.

Meyssan writes:

“In a few days, perhaps as early as Friday, June 15, at noon, the Syrians wanting to watch their national TV stations will see them replaced on their screens by TV programs created by the CIA.

Studio-shot images will show massacres that are blamed on the Syrian Government, people demonstrating, ministers and generals resigning from their posts, President Al-Assad fleeing, the rebels gathering in the big city centers, and a new government installing itself in the presidential palace.

This operation of disinformation, directly managed from Washington by Ben Rhodes, the US deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, aims at demoralizing the Syrians in order to pave the way for a coup d’etat. NATO, discontent about the double veto of Russia and China, will thus succeed in conquering Syria without attacking the country illegally.

Whichever judgment you might have formed on the actual events in Syria, a coup d’etat will end all hopes of democratization.”

If NATO’s plan for a media coup is true, then we must do everything in our power to stop this insanity and foolishness before it comes to be executed.

Meyssan advises readers to, “circulate this article on the Internet and alert your elected officials.”

We must also apply moral pressure to the corrupt members of the Western “mainstream” media and force them to report the truth for once, or risk being charged as war criminals for their involvement in war propaganda efforts.

Syria is not Libya. Waging an all-out war against Syria is a further step towards World War III.

People who support a UN or NATO intervention in Syria are by extension in favour of World War III.

Martin Iqbal says that due to the work of so-called human rights organizations many well-intentioned people in the West have been duped into supporting a criminal and covert agenda for war against Syria.

He writes:

“Orwellian ‘human rights’ outfits such as Avaaz have become adept at manipulating well-meaning activists and liberals into supporting the very agenda they purport to oppose – placing them firmly in the same camp as the most virulent Zionists, Neoconservatives, and war hawks one can imagine.

This makes the illusory nature of the left-right dichotomy clearer than ever before, but even more worryingly it expedites the march of the NATO-GCC-Israeli war machine that now has Syria in its crosshairs.”

The challenge for true humanitarians and world citizens is to advocate for real solutions that address the real problems plaguing Syria right now.

Understanding that Syria is under attack from the criminal leaders of the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia is crucial.

And this war goes beyond Syria’s borders.

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky writes, “A war on Syria is also a war on Palestine. It would weaken  the resistance movement in the occupied territories.

It would reinforce the Netanyahu government’s ambitions to create a “Greater Israel”, initially, through the outright annexation of the Palestinian territories.”

So by waging an illegal war against Syria, the Obama administration is throwing the Palestinians under the bus and destroying any chance of a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama is following the Neocon plan down to every last detail.

No one can honestly justify a military solution to a foreign-instigated security crisis in Syria.

The U.S. government is going against history, world public opinion, and international law in Syria.

Bringing down Assad is not moral or legal.

Sponsoring terrorists in Syria and unleashing NATO death squads to terrorize the Syrian people and destabilize the Syrian government is a war crime. Syrians are fighting for their survival.

The international community must get real and hold the leaders of the U.S., Israel, Britain, and Saudi Arabia accountable for their crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace.

These are rogue terrorist states run by plutocrats and banksters, not responsible, democratic, and legitimate international actors.

They want to destroy Syria, not save it from its current regime.

The only moral response by ordinary citizens around the world to the crisis in Syria is to stand with the Syrian people against the war criminals leading the U.S., NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their Jihadist terrorists.

Saman Mohammadi is the writer and editor at Land Destroyer

 Similar/Related Articles :

  1. US scenario in Syria exposed: Turkish incursion, Israeli invasion

  2. Sen. Graham: We Will Attack Syria Soon

  3. Libya’s NTC recognizes Syria’s Rebel SNC (and the war’s not even over yet)

  4. Exclusive: Iran helps Syria ship oil to China: sources

  5. Russia upgrades Syria-based electronic station to warn Iran of US/Israeli attack

  6. U.S. Moves Closer to Arming Syrian Rebels

  7. US plans buffer zone along Syria border

  8. War in Syria: Gamble for US

  9. West seeks civil war in Syria to find excuse for intervention

  10. US to announce aerial blockade on Syria

  11. U.S. Moves Closer to Attack on Syria

  12. Britain Moves to Invade Syria Under Humanitarian Pretext






Netanyahu Found Guilty by Israel State Comptroller


From Roy Tov.com

Israel State Comptroller 

Micha Lindenstrauss

Israel State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss

Today, June 13, 2012, Israel State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss published his report on the Israeli government behavior in the events related to Gaza’s Freedom Flotilla of May 2010.

The publication timing was not casual, Mr. Lindenstrauss delayed the report as much as he could since there was no way he could portray Netanyahu positively.

As reported in America Pays for Netanyahu’s Luxury Trips, the comptroller must release his last reports before he leaves office.

The report released today doesn’t look into the unjustifiable violence of the IDF during the raid, but into Netanyahu’s handling of the event.

The Prime Minister turned out being rather clumsy and incompetent to the extent of causing an unnecessary disaster.

In the words of the comptroller: “The decision making process regarding the dealings with the Turkish flotilla led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and under his responsibility was found to include essential and significant flaws.”

This report was published after that, on May 24, criminal charges were placed by Turkey against several IDF officers, demanding life sentences for their actions during the Flotilla events.

Among them was former IDF Chief of Staff, General Gaby Ashkenazi (see Criminal Charges Placed against IDF General Ashkenazi), who plays an important role also in the State Comptroller report.

General Ashkenazy behaved like a brute during the event, but before it, he issued a severe warning to Netanyahu.

He was so confident that he would be ignored, that he sent the warning in an official letter to Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak.

The document was posted weeks before the sailing date; the general claimed in it that the flotilla should be thwarted by diplomatic means before resorting to use of force.

A characteristic of military mail is that it gets over-registered; neither Netanyahu nor Barak could claim not to have received it.

Netanyahu didn’t even try to deny that, the comptroller found that Netanyahu held four work meetings with Ashkenazi on the issue.

Yet, Netanyahu said to the comptroller “the Chief of Staff didn’t raise the issue of the threat that flotilla members posed nor did he voice any concern that violence would erupt.

In the meeting at the Defense Minister’s office, the possibility that the flotilla was dangerous because of its size or the probability that shots would be fired was assessed as negligible.”

Netanyahu strengthened this apparent contradiction by adding “in no place, in no discussion, not with anyone, not with the Defense Minister, not with the Chief of Staff, not with the Navy Commander… nowhere there was a problem with the operation raised.”

These contradictions are typical of Netanyahu; in the Bibi Tours Affair he recognized the facts but claimed everything was legal (including double-billing!).

Who are Netanyahu’s friends?

Gabi Ashkenazi

 Gabi Ashkenazi | Criminal Charges against former IDF Chief of Staff

Yet, the issue of the IDF early warnings seems secondary when compared to the decision making process used by Netanyahu.

As after the 1973, 1982, and 2006 wars, the process was found tremendously flawed.

Every time, the same errors were repeated by the political system, and the same criticism was made afterwards by the judiciary system; the Israeli Administration has successfully proved that it has the learning power of an amoeba.

The comptroller’s report shows that Benjamin Netanyahu runs the Israeli government as if it were a tiny neighborhood shop, ignoring all legal procedures.

The comptroller reports of awareness at all levels that the event was about to turn violent, as opposed to previous flotillas, which were thwarted peacefully.

Five days before the flotilla’s arrival to Gaza, in the only relevant meeting held by the seven senior ministers, General Ashkenazi warned that a military takeover of the Mavi Marmara ship would lead to a violent confrontation.

“I want to clarify that it isn’t easy, but we will do it. It is no-two minute operation,” he said and added “If anyone wants to make a drama out of it – there’s enough fuel for two or three days – not an hour… I have no doubt that there will be violence there. Let it be made clear. The people will confront us. I think it’s an illusion to think that if 20 people descend onto a ship with 400 people aboard they will be met with applause. They will fight them.”

Three of the ministers—including Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor and Benny Begin—raised concerns over the IDF’s plans, inquired about the details but were silenced by Netanyahu.

The comptroller claims “the meeting’s participants were unaware of the purpose of the debate and its content, and, on any account, did not have enough time to prepare for it;” thus the decision making process was centralized by Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

The comptroller emphasized that the ministers received only a general overview of the flotilla, without any complete discussion as to the operation’s consequences, and didn’t hear of any alternative paths.

Netanyahu and Barak were both found at fault.

“Despite the fact that information concerning the Turkish flotilla began accumulating at the beginning of 2010, and despite the recognition by the prime minister that it represented an irregular event, the decision-making process was done without proper coordination,” the comptroller wrote.

The report discloses that the working meetings between Netanyahu and Barak were held without any preparation or documentation on the event. “It wasn’t clear which decisions were made during, decisions that were, on any account, not summed in writing.”

In other words, nobody knows what was decided.

Yet, it was obvious that Netanyahu’s government didn’t take any diplomatic steps and relied entirely on the military option.

This happened while the military warned of unnecessary violence.

“The decision making process regarding the dealings with the Turkish flotilla led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and under his responsibility was found to include essential and significant flaws,” the comptroller summarized the event.

Sadly, no matter how serious this report is, it probably wouldn’t bring to Netanyahu’s resignation or to the placing of criminal charges against him.

Netanyahu proved being inept, causing an unnecessary massacre of civilians bringing humanitarian aid to refugees.

Interestingly, the report went beyond this point, providing a collateral allusion to a point I made in the past in Is Netanyahu an Iranian Spy? 

State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss said in his official report “in reality, the Prime Minister made the decision as to the way to deal with the Turkish Flotilla based on the discussion held in this forum, and based on the recommendations of his friends.”

“Netanyahu’s Friends” do not appear in this form for the first time in the Hebrew media, but this is probably the first time they appear in an official document issued by the state.

The allusion is to friends who are outside the government and its related organizations; it has been explained in such a way by the major Hebrew newspapers.

If we accept the report—and there is no reason to reject it, after all Israel finally admitted its error—then we must ask Mr. Netanyahu who are his secret friends.

Probably he won’t answer, or will provide yet another r example of double-answering and double-billing.

Yet, this is such an irresistible riddle!

Should we ask CIA Director David Petreus?






US and Israel violate international law with total impunity: Chomsky


From PressTV

A renowned American political analyst says Israel gets away with numerous violations of international law as the Jewish entity is a client of the US and therefore enjoys “total impunity,” Press TV reports.

“…it (Israel) is a client state of the United States; the United States has total impunity and that is inherited by its allies and clients,” American philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky told Press TV in an exclusive interview on Wednesday. 

The comments come as US President Barack Obama on June 5 once again voiced unwavering support for Tel Aviv, reiterating that Washington is “decidedly more attentive” to Israel than it is to the Palestinians. 

Obama, who made the remarks at a meeting between White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew and a visiting delegation of the US Orthodox Jewish community, also called on the audience not to cast doubts on his loyalty to his Israeli allies. 

“That’s what power is,” Chomsky noted, “so for example the United States itself cannot be brought before any international tribunal. The one attempt to do so, the International Court of Justice- US simply dismissed it.” 

The celebrated academic went on to say that what the US means when it refers to the international community is different from what is generally understood by the term. 

“Where the term (international community) is used in the West, the international community refers to the United States and anyone who happens to be going along with it. If the world happens to be, most of the world is opposed, they’re just not part of the international community,” Chomsky said. 







GOP Delegates Revolt Against Romney & RNC


From the Trenches

Posted on June 13, 2012 by Admin

Courthouse News Service  SANTA ANA, Calif. (CN) – In a revolt against Romney, 123 would-be convention delegates claim the Republican National Committee has used violence, intimidation and ballot stuffing to deter them from voting for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the national convention, including the first.

All 123 named plaintiffs are from states in the 9th Circuit.

They sued the Republican National Committee, its Chairman Reince Priebus, and every state party chairman in the 9th Circuit.

“Plaintiffs are delegates elected to nominate the Republican nominee for president of the United States at a national convention to be held commencing the week of August 27, 2012, in Tampa, Florida,” the complaint states.

“Names [sic – recte: Named] plaintiffs and plaintiffs identified as Does 1 through 1,000 are residents of the United States, including all states within the jurisdiction of the 9thCircuit Federal Court who are duly elected delegates, alternate delegates, delegates elected by being denied certification due to their refusal to surrender their voting rights to vote in accordance with the free exercise of their conscience and not be bound to the nominee of defendant’s choice.”

The Republican rebels say they want to be “unbound to vote their conscience free from any intimidation from any person or entity.”

The complaint continues: “Plaintiffs come to Federal Court to seek the guidance of the court regarding the federal question as to whether plaintiffs are free to vote their conscience on the first and all ballots at the federal election known as the Republican National Convention, or whether plaintiffs are bound to vote for a particular candidate as instructed by defendants’ state party bylaws, or state laws, or the preference of political operatives seeking affidavits of loyalty to a particular candidate under penalty of perjury.”

Citing 42 U.S.C., the plaintiffs claim it is illegal to try to force people to vote for a specific candidate: “‘No person, whether acting under the color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of president.’”

But the Republican mavericks claim that in almost every state, the defendants have violated this law by harassing delegates who don’t support Mitt Romney.

“This harassment included the use of violence, intimidating demands that delegates sign affidavits under penalty of perjury with the threat of criminal prosecution for perjury as well as financial penalties and fines if the delegate fails to vote as instructed by defendants rather than vote the delegate’s conscience …

“Defendants have used threats of violence, including dressing security type people in dark clothing searching out supporters of a candidate defendants do not approve of to harass and intimidate said delegates from voting their conscience.”

They claim that Romney does not have the nomination sewed up despite the machinations of the defendants: “The Republican National Committee (hereafter RNC) and its chairman have been aiding the Governor Romney Campaign for at least 6 months up to and including the present time, notwithstanding that no candidate has won the nomination.

Governor Romney does not have 1,144 delegates, the minimum number of delegates required to win the nomination, and no candidate can be assured that they are the nominee until the delegates vote because the delegates have a statutory and constitutional right to vote their conscience.”

The plaintiffs accuse state party chairmen of fixing elections and changing ballot results so that all votes will count for Romney.

“Plaintiffs allege there has been a systematic campaign of election fraud at state conventions, including programming a voting machine in Arizona to count Ron Paul votes as Governor Romney votes; ballot stuffing, meaning the same person casting several ballots in several states; altering and falsifying ballot totals for each candidate; the use of violence at several state conventions; [and] altering procedural rules to prevent votes from being cast for Ron Paul,” the complaint states.

They claim that the RNC and its chairman “intimidate delegates in support of the RNC’s position that Governor Romney is the nominee of the party when Governor Romney does not have the minimum number of delegates and no vote has yet taken place and the convention has not begun.”

They claim that delegates who refuse to sign loyalty affidavits to Romney “are told they may not serve as delegates, even though they were duly elected.”

The plaintiffs ask the court to order the RNC to inform delegates that they can vote for the candidate of their choice; to reinstate delegates who lost their seats at the convention because they refused to sign loyalty affidavits; and to recount ballots by hand or hold another convention in areas “where the sanctity of the ballots are untrustworthy.”

“Without the orders requested from this court, plaintiffs will be denied their right to vote in accordance with their conscience on the first and all ballots of the federal election that is the Convention of the Republican Party,” the complaint states.

The delegates are represented by Richard Gilbert & Marlowe, who did not return calls seeking comment.






Arizona Election Fraud

Pima County Superior Court Judge Kyle Bryson Rules in Direct Opposition to the Appellate Courts


From Fatally Flawed:

The State of Elections in the U.S.

Posted by  -June 10, 2012

Attorney Bill Risner Speaks to Judge Kyle Bryson

After Arizona’s Appellate courts ruled in favor of the Libertarian’s argument for prospective relief in rigged elections, Judge Kyle Bryson granted Pima County’s Motion to Dismiss based on the grounds that the courts do not have jurisdiction in elections.  Sound familiar?  

The goal of the Libertarian Party’s suit is to protect the “purity of elections” in the future, starting with this 2012 election season. 

As stated in their initial disclosure statement:

“At the present time it is easy to cheat using our election computers and impossible to challenge a rigged election.

The ease of cheating when matched with the impossibility of challenging any specific election requires court intervention in order to protect the purity of elections and ensure that we will have free elections.”

The need for prospective relief was first brought up in a counter claim by the Libertarian Party as a means to help prevent Pima County from rigging future elections like what appears to be the case for the RTA election.  

The appellate courts already decided that Libertarian party may demonstrate through the courts once and for all that the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election was rigged. 

This is a necessary component for justifying prospective relief.  The RTA ballots for this two billion dollar bond measure are being held under a court order to ensure restricted access to their location at the Iron Mountain storage facility.

Currently, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry is using every legal means possible to stand in the way of a proper, independent forensic examination of the ballots. 

Huckelberry’s legal team is blocking this proceeding despite his numerous claims that his elections division would be exonerated by a proper investigation.

Judge Bryson, who replaced Judge Charles Harrington after he erred in his previous ruling,  seems to have cut-and-pasted Judge Harrington’s earlier ruling granting the County’s Motion to Dismiss.

A key element in this court proceeding was Attorney General Terry Goddard’s investigation which is often referenced by the county, yet always proven to be woefully inadequate

So inadequate that it represents the failure of the executive branch to provide sufficient remedy in a rigged election and was part of the argument for winning the initial appeal for prospective relief from rigged elections.

The issue of jurisdiction and when such jurisdiction applies was discussed in the previous Appellate Court ruling ordering the courts to proceed with the hearing for prospective relief.  

Here the argument centered around the failure of the legislative branch, because of the impossible five-day window to challenge elections in the state of Arizona. 

The Appellate Court agreed with the Libertarian Party’s argument that “the court abused its discretion by not exercising equity jurisdiction to consider the lawsuit.” 

This same abuse is repeated by Judge Kyle Bryson.  

Bryson’s ruling is the strongest evidence that Pima County’s court system  should be included in the war of cost and attrition against election integrity. 

As Bill Risner observes, “This lawsuit involves only the issue of preventing cheating in the future.  The Pima County Courts do not want to hear it and do not want to consider ways to prevent cheating.”

Election integrity advocates had previous indications of Pima County Superior Courts’ collusion with its administrators, especially with Harrington’s “wash your hands” incident and the refusal of the courts to grant attorney’s fees for previous court victories.

Add a recent move reminiscent of Pima County’s past shenanigans

No copy of Bryson’s ruling was sent to the attorneys working on behalf of prospective relief for elections. 

Although the County received their copy of the May 4th ruling, attorney Bill Risner (along with his co-counsel Ralph Ellington) were left to make the inadvertent discovery of the ruling 15 days later.  

Part of the mystery behind the ruling was not only how long it took to decide (snuck out in three months), but what on earth Judge Bryson might have been doing with his time during this period. 

It’s difficult to make the assumption he was presiding over something more important and therefore could not include a rudimentary analysis involving the subject matter at hand.

Fortunately the 15 day stall tactic was just a stall tactic and did not eat up the 15 day window legally afforded to make an appeal.  

An appeal that may not be necessary, because Judge Bryson’s ruling seems to have put the cart before the horse.  

As Bill Risner states:

“The Libertarian Party’s counterclaim had simply requested that the court after ‘finding that there was tampering, issue an appropriate permanent injunction to prevent a reoccurrence.’ 

Judge Bryson said that ‘it now appears the Libertarian Party will ask the Court to require Pima County to perform graphic scanning of all ballots case and provide those images to the public in future elections.’ 

He decided that he couldn’t do that so he might as well dismiss the case. 

Such a request had not been made.  A motion to dismiss had not been made on that ground by the county. 

Such an order would have been lawful.  It was only one of many possible orders that the court could have entered.”

Due to this oversight, the county may be looking at a whole new trial. 

A trial addressing additional remedies like immediate access to memory cards for election challenges, adjusting auditing procedures for county and bond races and improved chain of custody procedures to prevent further tampering.

Pima County’s unique form of nepotism provides a living, breathing model of how monopolies work. 

It’s a bureaucracy that might as well be one big corporate oligarchy with arms outstretched to its own judiciary, its own public defenders, its own prosecutors, its own elections division, its own treasurer’s office, its own court vault and its own law enforcement. 

Heads of all these departments have their salaries set by Pima County Administrator, Chuck Huckelberry, the CEO or chief administrator deeply entrenched in this bureaucracy. 

A bureaucracy exclusively funded by taxpayers. 

To soften the blow of public outrage for what is eventually becoming obvious in the 2006 RTA elections case (as well as a number of other conflicts)Pima County has engaged in building a P.R. machine by picking up employment slack from failing local newspaper outlets.  

For example, Gary Duffy, a reporter for the now defunct Tucson Citizen, co-wrote an award winning article shedding light on one of many RTA security breaches entitled, “Record of votes in ’06 RTA election missing”. 

Last month you might have spotted Duffy hanging out behind a booth promoting the RTA as part of his job for the county. 

Reliable sources include ten reporters making the jump to the county trough.  What are the chances of accurate, critical coverage of Judge Bryson’s ruling in the local news outlets?

Despite such adversity, in the decaying “methlab of democracy” known as Arizona, election integrity advocates continue to engage in this battle for clean elections.


1.  Information acquired within the past six years includes specific ways to identify red flags in electronic records that are sufficient to challenge elections.

2.  Testimony is on record from officials all over the country confirming that electronic voting machines and their software are insecure and unreliable. 

3.  Despite the stall tactics used by Pima County’s giant bureaucracy, this litigation will set a precedent to help others throughout the country pursue and achieve election integrity.

4.  Similarly flawed electronic voting machines and software are currently in use throughout the country.

5.  Prospective relief through this precedent-setting court case could provide a tangible, timely means to improve election transparency nationwide.






Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: