Two months ago, on the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, ABC News asked Dick Cheney to comment on "recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it." With a chuckle and a smirk (video), Cheney famously replied, "so?"

As infuriating as this may be, it comes as no surprise. In fact, this quip - "so?" - should feel familiar to millions of Americans ardently working for peace, justice, the rule of law, election integrity, and a host of other supra-issues, each another path to understanding the illegitimacy of the power behind such dismissiveness.

This illegitimate power flaunts itself virtually unchecked, reinforced by mass media and enabled by the learned helplessness of the American people. Ever since the indeterminate period following the 2000 "election," I have drawn attention to this odd paradox of helplessness, from which it is past time we learned:

Having cast a vote, each of us is supposed to know that we did our part to elect our next set of leaders. Yet we are in fact helpless to influence the outcome of events in Florida. Will the election be determined by legal wrangling or concession, vote totals or fraud? No matter which seems to be the ultimate basis for declaring a winner, many will scream injustice. Doesn't this uncertainty cast doubt on the legitimacy of any eventual outcome?

[S]hortly after 9/11, I saw a newspaper photo of a limp woman being dragged by police officers at a UC Berkeley Middle East peace rally. Passive resistance appeared to me as a classic activist technique. With images of picket signs, sit-ins, marches and strikes all popping into my head, I stared at the woman in the picture and couldn't help feeling that her attempt at noble sacrifice left the world no different the next day.

· The introduction of paperless electronic voting machines has resulted in "elections" whose unverifiable results are inherently inconclusive. In November 2004, roughly 30% of the votes cast could not be recounted using physical ballots touched by voters. This is blatantly illegal in the many jurisdictions where a close race automatically triggers a recount. It also means we cannot possibly reconcile the results of so-called "glitches" such as machines losing data, counting backwards, or reporting more votes than registered voters. These conditions ensure inconclusive outcomes that will never receive unanimous acceptance (more inherent uncertainty). As the City Council of Arcata, CA attested in adopting the Voter Confidence Resolution, "When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought."

Failing to seek the Consent of the Governed has created a situation where such Consent is assumed. Allowing this assumption to stand is the great collective sabotage* of We The People. The very legitimacy of the U.S. government must be questioned and challenged for it is based not on democratic principles or even laws, but rather the textbook aspects of fascism. Within the reality-based community, these 14 characteristics of fascism are familiar thanks to Laurence W. Britt's widely circulated essay describing commonalities among seven different fascist regimes throughout history.

* Sabotage is the human nature tendency to make trouble for ourselves. Sabotage is yin to the yang of Progress – the result that occurs when we stop making trouble for ourselves.

Extensively footnoted, this book draws out astounding parallels between Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet and more. Laid against the backdrop of 21st century America, Wolf shows those currently in power have followed the playbook closely.

Wolf refers to "historical echoes" when describing such recurrent totalitarian manifestations as: secret prisons, mercenary or paramilitary forces, surveillance of ordinary citizens and infiltration of their organizations, restrictions on the press and speech in general, arbitrary detainment and release of citizens, evocation of a constant internal and external threat, allegations of espionage and treason at critics and dissenters and subversion of the rule of law.

I took comfort in observing that most if not all in attendance understand empirically, logically and emotionally that there is no rational basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections. There was a lot of discussion about what has happened in recent "elections." But even more important were the projections, made with certainty, that future elections held under these conditions will guarantee inconclusive outcomes and fail to produce unanimous acceptance of the results.

(snip)

Looking at the real elephant in the room includes these questions: where is the movement going? What will it look like when it succeeds? How can we develop and facilitate the implementation of a cohesive national strategy? And how can we make the phrase "peaceful revolution" socially acceptable? This is why I went to Portland. There was some progress made but we did not get to the core of this matter.

Therefore, be it resolved that to warrant the Consent of the Governed, and the authorization of the transfer of power to winning candidates, a full hand count of all legally cast ballots shall first be conducted. This hand count shall reflect the only official result and not be regarded as a recount in any way, including relieving voters of the obligation to pay for said count; and

Therefore, be it resolved that until such a hand count has been verifiably conducted and a conclusive outcome determined, We, The People, DO NOT CONSENT to transferring power and authority to candidates claiming victory in this illegitimate election. We will do everything within our Constitutional and Human Rights to protect and preserve possession of this power that is inalienably Ours to be given but never taken away.

The collective outcry in this case was channeled into a lawsuit brought by voters. Attorney Paul Lehto correctly called this election nullification, a term that is apt for all so-called "elections" held under unverifiable conditions. His point was that if the outcome of an election could be determined this way then it defeats the purpose of voting and having an election in the first place. So? The judge dismissed the case on the premise that the Constitution gives Congress the final say in seating members, and not even a large number of uncounted ballots could give the court jurisdiction to order counting, whether by hand or otherwise.

Right about this time I also challenged the media to follow its own most fundamental ethics and not to report as fact what simply can't be proven and confirmed (unverified and unverifiable "election" results). This is a perfect example of a tilt target, an untenable position that can be maintained (by the media, in this case) only for the lack of being pointed out and challenged. This was among a series of talking points I published and circulated for progressive media. It also spawned two published op-eds and two radio forums on media accountability. So? Without louder sustained pressure upon this Achilles' heel of media credibility, the situation remains unchanged today.

Even progressive stalwarts such as Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins continue to devote substantial radio air time to discussing the candidates and campaigns even though we see widespread consensus that this will have no bearing on how "election" results will be determined. The message of this essay must reach beyond my friends and respected colleagues in the election integrity movement and sink in to the minds of the millions volunteering for and donating to candidate campaigns (for any office, really, not just president). I'd like to think the former can manifest the latter.

 1  |  2  |  3