Bailouts & Buyouts: What Happened to Capitalism?

There is growing consensus in the mainstream media that the source of all our current economic woes lies in the underlying economic philosophy of capitalism. The main problem with this diagnosis lies in our incorrect and faulty choice of words, which in turn is responsible for our incorrect and confused understanding. What we have today is not "capitalism," it is "disaster capitalism." The original intent behind capitalism in the U.S. which came with the American Revolution, was a free market, anti-mercantislist system. A laissez-faire system where the market would be left free to decide all business and economic activity, free from the intervention of government or any other institution. In fact, the role of government was negative: it was mandated that government refrain from being involved in the market in any way. Instead, their sole economic prerogative was to ensure that the market remained free. Government bureaucrats have since lost that noble free-market vision and instead insist on "fixing" everything. Here is a worthwhile quote from John DiLorenzo's article Celebrating America's Capitalist Revolution.

Thus it was that in 1776, the year that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, so many of the acts of tyranny that King George III was accused of had as their objective the implementation of British mercantilism in the colonies. The American Revolution was at least partly a capitalist, or anti-mercantilist revolution. In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was written Adam Smith published his famous treatise, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The "Wealth of Nations" is a prolonged attack on the policy of British mercantilism and a defense of its opposite: free trade and the institutions of capitalism (even though the term "capitalism" had not yet been coined).

The argument more and more individuals are making, at its core, is the same argument former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan made at one of the recent Congressional hearings. He spoke of the mistake he had made in trusting and believing in free markets. Paraphrasing, he said that his former world-view, that free markets work, was in error, and that now he admitted this error. The only problem with his admission, and the mainstream media's superficial diagnosis, is there haven't been any truly free markets in existence for the better part of a century! Free markets have become increasingly an extinct species since the early 20th century, and since then have increasingly gone down the path towards "disaster" capitalism: the kind of capitalism in which virtual monopolies run rampant under the guise of an interconnected and indecipherable web of subsidiary companies and power and wealth consolidation ad infinitum.

It's not that capitalism doesn't work. If it were real, as in laissez-faire capitalism, where elected representatives honorably performed their duty and ensured markets remained free, it would work. What we have in the U.S. and increasingly all over the world is what Buckminster Fuller called the Grunch of Giants, or to put it colloquially, corporatocracy or corporatism. Large multinational corporations now control our governments and major institutions. And they didn't come into being because of capitalism, but rather through the absence of free-market capitalism parading as capitalism.

Many believe that capitalism results in inevitable wealth and power consolidation. This is not where capitalism takes us. This is where "disaster" capitalism takes us. True capitalism, à la laissez-faire capitalism, takes us in a very different direction. Wealth and power consolidation is not possible under laissez-faire capitalism, as the free market by its very nature would correct for this through greater competition, thereby spreading the wealth and power. Consolidation of wealth and power occurs only when the free market is inhibited in some way. That is, when capitalism is not functioning.

The problem is that many large companies that have lost the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship have instead tried to change the rules of the playing field in lieu of competing. And when corporations succeed in changing the rules of the playing field, we are no longer operating in a free market system: true capitalism is no more. In our time, capitalism has been replaced with something that is 'capitalism' in name only.

An Inconvenient Economic Truth

I was recently impressed by a video presentation titled "An Inconvenient Economic Truth," by Juan Enriguez. The presenter makes some excellent points concerning our current economic crisis. However, I have two points of contention regarding his diagnosis and proposed solution.

First, Juan makes a statement indicating that the main reason we are in this economic mess is that there was massive de-regulation of the financial markets; that they were too free. This is essentially Alan Greenspan's reasoning in his statement made before a Congressional Committee. But this is a red-herring. The problem is not de-regulation and a free market. A truly free market has never existed in the United States nor anywhere else for that matter, in any substantive form. If it did exist, the market would automatically correct itself. What we do have in the United States and all over the world is central banking, heavily manipulated markets, and fiat currency systems—all anathema to the very idea of a constitutional republic or limited democracy.

The problem is not de-regulation and overly free markets (they're clearly not) but misguided regulation. For example, the Fed made artificially cheap credit available, and the government encouraged and even forced banks to extend that credit to poor-credit borrowers. As a result, housing prices climbed about 50% in 7 years while all the traditional market forces were trying to pull these prices down through higher interest rates. But the Fed prevented this natural correction from happening through their forced low interest rate policy. Couple this to massive leveraging of these bad debts (20x-30x, up to 100x in some instances), and we have the current credit crisis.

Traditional market forces could and would have corrected the problem, if these forces were allowed to function, by not allowing bad debt to circulate in the first place. However, the root of the problem is even more menacing: it stems from the debt-based fiat currency system in use today in the United States and all over the world. This system facilitates derivatives, leveraging, and fractional reserve banking. In our current debt-based system, the markets need to be carefully shielded from manipulative/interventionist forces (i.e., artificial interest rates), and greedy banking interests (i.e., derivatives, leveraging, and fractional reserve banking). These are the excesses pandemic in our current debt-based financial system. Hence the need for "regulation." Regulation would not be necessary if the financial system was a real asset-based system.

The solution Juan proposes is that we need to defend this little piece of paper called the U.S. dollar. No, what we need to do is let it die, and replace it with an asset-based non-fiat currency, instead of a debt-based fiat currency. Otherwise the problem will simply repeat itself in a more magnified form at some point in the future. Why? Because this boom and bust cycle is built into the existing financial system. We need to replace this little piece of valueless paper with a currency that has intrinsic value with absolutely no possibility for fractional reserve banking. A 100% commodity-backed currency, for example, using silver or gold. This would prevent governments and banking institutions from "printing" money when they wanted it, which includes any form of derivative and/or leveraging, and would be the greatest restraint on government spending, borrowing and bank lending, not to mention dramatically curtailing government's imperialistic "prerogative." This would be the end of big government, the end of the military-industrial complex, the end of the welfare state, and the dawn of limited government, a creature that has been extinct in the United States since the mid 19th century.

The basis for the entire U.S. financial system as it stands is a fraud perpetrated on the American people and in direct contravention to the Constitution. In 1913, the prevailing forces finally got their tentacles into the right politicians and forced the Federal Reserve into being through the Federal Reserve Act, in addition to instituting the Federal Income Tax and Internal Revenue Service as the 16th Amendement. Both fraudulent and illegal institutions. Skeptical? Have a look at these fascinating quotes with many more available here.

"For the first time in its history, Western Civilization is in danger of being destroyed internally by a corrupt, criminal ruling cabal which is centered around the Rockefeller interests, which include elements from the Morgan, Brown, Rothschild, Du Pont, Harriman, Kuhn-Loeb, and other groupings as well. This junta took control of the political, financial, and cultural life of America in the first two decades of the twentieth century." — Carroll Quigley (Professor, Georgetown University, mentioned by Bill Clinton in his inauguration speech)

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president." — Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." — Henry Ford

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." — James Madison

Study Says Intellectual Property Should Die

TorrentFreak recently published an article which brought a great deal of attention to a recent study which indicated that the current "Intellectual Property" system in the world is not working. The original study was published by the non-proft group The Innovation Group and released under a Creative Commons license. Here is a quote from the study:

"The current era of intellectual property is waning. It has been based on two faulty assumptions made nearly three decades ago: that since some intellectual property (IP) is good, more must be better; and that IP is about controlling knowledge rather than sharing it. These assumptions are as inaccurate in biotechnology (the field of science covered by this report) as they are in other fields from music to software."

The study and article caused a great deal of discussion in the online community. What's clear from the ensuing discussion is that many people are confusing things.

The "death" of the existing system of intellectual property rights doesn't mean a lawless, anarchistic land where anyone can steal from anyone, or even a landscape where everything belongs to the state.

The problem with the idea of intellectual property is that it's not property at all, yet it is being treated as property. Say you have a brilliant idea. Does that mean I'm not allowed to think or act on that idea because it is "yours"? Thoughts don't belong to people. They are not property. It's something we do as human beings.

People often give misleading examples of why intellectual property rights are good. Take a software company that spends thousands of man hours creating their software. Isn't it right that all their efforts should be protected from theft? Sure. It would be theft to take the software products, mass copy them, and sell them or pass them off as my own. I have not created anything here. I have only stolen. But if you are a clever software programmer and have the ability to re-create similar software by the fruits of your own mental and physical labour, why should you be prevented from doing so? It is your right to create and produce. Just because someone else has done something before, doesn't mean you should never be able to do something similar. Your approach may be very different, and then again, it may not. But if it is your creation, you must be free to do it; and you also must be free to do what you want with it.

Ideas and thoughts must never be constrained by the abstractions of intellectual property rights. And individuals must be free to re-create an existing technology, medicine, or work of art, for example, based on those original thoughts. It's the specific material product of those thoughts in the creation of something of value that must be protected from theft.

The present system attacks anybody that attempts to re-create anything which already exists, even though such a process of re-creation requires enormous resources of creativity and self-expression of the individual.

"Intellectual Property" rights should disappear and be replaced with "Specific Material Products of the Intellect" rights. And what about the artist who produces a great piece of music? Or the author who produces a great book? These are not "intellectual property." These are specific material products of the intellect, and ought to be protected from wholesale theft or uncreative reproduction and distribution—if that's what the creator wishes.

To be clear, this doesn't imply that you shouldn't be allowed to re-create versions or adaptations of any of these works using your own creative processes. And that's what the present intellectual property system prevents us from doing. It prevents us from taking something, changing it, building upon it, and arriving at something new and beneficial for society.

Indeed, the system as it stands does need to die.

Predicting Recession: Negative GDP, Business Cycles, and Money

Congressman Ron Paul gave a compelling speech before Congress on May 15, 2000 that predicted much of what has happened in global financial circles, and very likely much of what will come. It's not difficult to see, one hardly needs to extrapolate the data to see the writing on the wall. However, it is important that we have reliable sources of information.

Many in financial circles believe that economic statistics provided by the U.S. government are reliable and accurately portray GDP, for example. According to these statistics, the economy has not shown two consequtive quarters of negative GDP. However, this is only because the official reported numbers are false. If one tracks the statistics according to how they were tracked a couple of decades ago, using (more) real measures, then the truth will out. In fact, we have had at least 12 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. For example, have a look at John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics site.

In actuality, we're in a massive stagflation. And the full force of this tsunami has yet to hit home. Give it a couple more years, and when it does—look out! The efforts on the part of the U.S. government's media machine are almost exclusively for perception management and controlling public opinion, invariably with false information in an ultimately futile attempt to keep the masses pacified thinking everything is just fine.

Further, counter to conventional wisdom, business cycles are not a part of true capitalism. True capitalism has rarely been seen, except perhaps to some degree prior to the institution of the Federal Reserve in 1913, or it's various attempts in the 19th century to obtain a monopoly on money creation in the United States. True captitalism leaves the government to perform only one task as far as economics is concered: protect the free market—keeping it truly free. Laissez-faire Capitalism = True Capitalism.

And what about the argument that business cycles have also occured prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve? Although this may be true to some degree, it is largely due to the same interests involved influencing economic policy that sought to create the Fed in the first place. Prior to the Fed these interest groups did not have the official sanction of government; afterwards they did. For more information read, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin as one reputable source; there are several others, including works by Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and even Ron Paul.

Ron Paul almost prophetically spoke of a massive economic "pullback" in the years to come. However, quite contrary to what many think, he was not referring to the collapse of the technology bubble but something far more comprehensive and pervasive: he was referrring to a global economic crisis. One in which our entire global economic system would be in a shambles—due largely to the fact that a fiat debt-based U.S. currency has been the world's reserve currency for the better part of a century, coupled to the realization that there isn't enough liquidity to finance this massive "credit card bill." If one reads the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) with any degree of regularity, one will see that over the last 2-3 years many central banks all over the world have been trying very quietly to divest themselves of US dollars, and then downplaying this divestiture in public circles so that they don't overly affect the markets, whilst at the same time ensuring they don't shoot themselves in the foot for the next round of divestiture.

The only way to have real, solid, non-superficial growth is to change the way our money is fashioned. We must divest ourselves of a debt-based Keynsian system in favour of an asset-based Misesian system. And gold-backed, silver-backed or any other difficult to obtain commodity backing is ideal for this purpose.

Ron Paul's insights into the nature of coin, currency and economics, are frighteningly accurate. Much of the economics we learn in college and university is largely a scam to perpetuate the existing power structures, groom us into a deluded self-assured malaise to occupy various positions in these instutitions, with the dangling promise that we too might be powerful, important, and wildly successful. And who knows? If we play our cards right, perhaps one day we might even become the keepers of these houses of cards.

Turn on, tune in, drop out.

U. of Iowa Physicist Weighs in on WTC Collapse

Perhaps unsurprisingly, even with the enormous quantity of information that is available, people still don't know the facts surrounding the World Trade Centre collapse on September 11, 2001. Crockett Grabbe, a Professor of Physics at the University of Iowa, was recently inteviewed on International News Net (INN) regarding the WTC collapse. The interview sparked some strong reactions, specifically, amidst supporters of mainstream media explanations surrounding the occurrences of the 9/11 attack.

But for those who are still unaware of the facts, there were many eyewitness accounts and corroborating video footage of several phenomena that occured just prior to the first tower collapse which look like jets of debris and dust suddenly and violently issuing from various locations on the side of the tower. According to experts, these are consistent with the effects of demolition explosions. Not only, but eyewitness fire department personel who were at the scene are recorded on camera as describing what they saw and heard—a rapid series of loud explosions coinciding with the fall of the first tower.

Interestingly, the smaller WTC 7 building also came down, but it wasn't hit by anything. The lease owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, was later interviewed regarding WTC 7, and this is what he had to say:

"I remember getting a call from the fire dept. commander, telling me that they were not sure they would be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is 'pull it'. And they made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Larry Silverstein himself admitted WTC 7 was pulled. However, upon closer examination, the latter portion of his statement does not coincide with the facts. One doesn't wire up a building with demolition charges in a matter of a few hours. Demolition experts say that the process of preparing a building for demolition requires weeks of planning for structural analysis and selection of the proper location for demolition charges. Why is Larry Silverstein lying? And since there were demolition charges used in WTC 7, what is the possibility that they were used in the other buildings? Especially considering the eyewitness accounts of firefighters and the rapid series of loud explosions with the collapse of the first tower?

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The documentary 911: In Plane Site, is a very compelling documentary on the 9/11 attacks which goes into much more detail and supports my contentions with clear and indisputable evidence. The first 25 minuntes discuss the Pentagon attack, and the remaing 45 minutes discuss the WTC attack.

Is the Federal Reserve Legal?

It seems people are waking up as to the legality and constitutionality of the institution known as the Federal Reserve. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives congress the power to "[...] coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, [...]" not an independent non-transparent private institution. Congress is representative of the people. The Federal Reserve is not part of the government and does not represent the people. It is a private institution that operates behind closed doors. They were given the power to coin money in 1913, and this was a direct violation of Article 1, Section 8. One can reasonably conclude that those ultimately behind the Federal Reserve, in order to coerce the U.S. government to perform such an illegal and unconstitutional act, must have been quite powerful indeed, with an enormous amount of resources already at their disposal.

Also, Article 1, Section 10 states that "No State shall [...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]" The abandoning of the gold standard by the U.S. in 1933 was a direct violation of Article 1, Section 10. The combination of these two violations of the constitution set the stage for unbridled debt-based spending. Prior to 1933, expensive public undertakings such as war could only be financed by taxes which was only a partial limitation on government, as high taxes to fund public projects would become unpopular rather quickly. Incidentally, prior to 1913, there were no federal income taxes. The apportionment of federal income taxes was passed as law in 1913 as the 16th amendment to the constitution, coincident with the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

The propaganda on the Federal Reserve website, (incidentally it has a .gov address which is just another deception to lend it the aura of being a government institution) indicates that the seven members of the Board of Governors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. However, in reality this is a mere formality. The prospective members of the board are short-listed by the controlling interests of the Federal Reserve, which are then "selected" by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It's very much like our own so-called democratic process. As a citizen, if you are to select one of seven possible candidates for a government post, all of whom have been pre-selected by the powers that be, do you have any real choice?

For more information on this interesting topic read, "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by Edward Griffin, "A Short History of Money and Banking" by William Gouge, "The Organization of Debt into Currency" by Charles Holt, and essentially anything by Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek. Also informative is the documentary entitled, "The Money Masters" by Bill Still. Slightly tangential but also related, the documentary, "America from Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo.

Congressman Ron Paul's "We the People" Act

"Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society." — Ron Paul

"The federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." — Ron Paul

As usual, there is a lot of confusion surrounding Ron Paul's political position, and specifically around his We the People Act. It's no wonder, as mainstream media and journalist hacks lacking in even the slightest analytical competency, regularly distort statements and positions beyond even the slightest recognition. For example, there are a number of people on Digg, who maintain that this Act is a removal of the rights and freedoms of individuals from certain segments of society.

This could not be further from the truth. It's easy to be misinformed about Ron Paul's position on civil rights, because so many individuals are putting words into his mouth. The interesting thing with Ron Paul is that his positions are always rooted in the Constitution. But it's not always obvious to the average person continuously barraged by mainstream media spin—often times careful thought and consideration is necessary to see precisely how. Instead of taking his position on issues based on hearsay or what others with little understanding have written, let's take it straight from the man himself.

Here is a good Q&A session that describes how Ron Paul stands on various civil rights issues. There are a couple of inaccuracies lower down (based on incorrect information on the contents of certain legislation)—but they don't affect the accuracy of the Q&A transcripts themselves. For more comprehensive information see this Wikipedia article on Ron Paul's political positions.

For example, take the gay rights / same sex marriage issues. Even though Ron Paul may not personally morally agree with these positions, he will not legislate for or against them, because that would be unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to legislate on moral issues, and Ron Paul understands and respects that. He leaves these issues for the individual states to decide.

It is a similar case with the abortion issue and specifically, Roe vs. Wade. Yes, Ron Paul is pro-life and personally believes that life begins at conception, but he will not legislate anti-abortion federal law based on his personal moral views. But neither will he tolerate pro-abortion legislation for the same reasons—which is why he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade: he wants to repeal legislation that unnecessarily involves the government in moral issues. Again, a Ron Paul administration would leave the individual states to adjuducate on these matters on a state by state basis.

In this mistitled video Ron Paul speaks on the bill; however, detractors often try to use the video to show that his position will result in loss of freedom and liberty. The following is a brief transcript from the video in which Ron Paul speaks:

"My approach is [...] accepting the priniciple that we can, as a legislative body and as a president, [...] remove the jurisdiction of this issue [prayer in schools, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.] from the federal courts.

I have a bill called We the People's Act [...] which literally just takes it [the issues] away from the federal courts. Which means any state could pass a law, pass a prohibition, and it could not be heard in federal court."

Any state, under this proposal, has the right to pass any prohibition legislating, for example, in the case of abortion, either in the pro-life camp, or the pro-choice camp, and whatever they legislate cannot be heard in a federal court. Ron is appealing to all sides on these issues. The point is, even though he is personally pro-life, he doesn't want the federal government involved in legislating one way or another on moral issues. Leave the decision to the individual states based on the will of the people in those states.

Ron Paul is the friend of Christian, and non-Christian, pro-life, and pro-choice, gay rights and Christian values, simply by refusing to involve the federal government in any of these issues, and allowing local groups to decide the outcomes. That is an increase in freedom and liberty, not a decrease. Remember, freedom and liberty doesn't mean "getting my way and enforcing it on everyone" it means allowing for a diversity of "different ways to be gotten"—if they are in fact the will of the majority in a given community. So, convince your local constituency that "your way" is best and "your way" can become locally mandated, provided it is not unconstitutional.

From the Wikipedia summary for the We the People Act:

"If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Because the bill forbids federal courts from hearing "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion," a practical effect of this bill might be that atheists could be banned from holding public office in Texas, as its state constitution requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being.[4] However, historically this technicality has not been enforced."

This is accurate and also supports my contention. However, the second last sentence is misleading. Yes, one theoretical effect of this bill might be that athiests could be banned from holding public office in Texas because of funky Texas state laws. However, the Constitution specifically states in Article 6, end of the third clause:

"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now, if state legislators wish to contravene the Constitution on this point, (Texas, Tennessee, and probably several other states do) then it will be up to the people to take this contravening legislation as high up the state court system as possible and get it struck down for what it is—unconstitutional. But notice that the last sentence states that historically this technicality in Texas (and other states) has not been enforced. Why? Because state law makers know they would not be able to get away with it, as the federal government would be forced to intervene. And the people would surely rise up in revolution.

CBS: Will Your Super Tuesday Vote Even Count?

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." — Josef Stalin (1879-1953), Communist Tyrant and Mass Murderer

This article written for The Raw Story generated a fair bit of discussion on the Digg forums the days surrounding the Super Tuesday vote on Feb. 5, 2008.

From the discussions, there still seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the problems with electronic voting machines—even with a paper trail receipt. In electronic voting, there is simply no way of verifying that the paper trail which corresponds to one's vote actually corresponds to the digital imprint in the voting machines memory. It is relatively easy for a savvy computer programmer to hack the system so that it prints out on paper what one expects, but actually tallies and records internally in another way altogether.

These considerations aside, reams of evidence suggesting election fraud on the part of Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, and Advance Voting Solutions, have already been collected by the excellent grassroots elections watchdog group BlackBoxVoting.org. They've provided documents and video footage containing expert testimony from a number of credible individuals including security professionals, computer scientists, researchers, professors, and others.

Affiliates of BlackBoxVoting.org shot this video after the New Hampshire primary in January, 2008. The video shows evidence of tampering on ballot boxes, and a complete breakdown of the chain of custody—a clear violation of the public trust.

There is a large body of evidence to strongly suggest that individuals have already manipulated election results in Florida 2000 (Gore & Bush), in Ohio 2004 (Kerry & Bush), and again in the 2006 mid-term elections. In fact, several individuals were convicted of election fraud in Ohio surrounding the 2004 election [2,3]. There is also legal testimony [4,5] to this effect.

All this being the case, should we, in good conscience, tolerate black box technology or chain of custody which may result in the popular vote not being counted? Or even worse, changed?

References:

1. http://uscountvotes.org/
2. http://www.freepress.org/...
3. http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/...
4. http://www.bbvforums.org/...
5. http://www.electionfraudnews.com/...
6. http://www.youtube.com/...
7. http://www.BlackBoxVoting.org/
8. http://www.truthout.org/...
9. http://freepress.org/...
10. http://globalresearch.ca/...
11. http://www.harpers.org/...
12. http://www.projectcensored.org/...
13. http://www.alternet.org/...
14. http://www.iwantmyvote.com/...
15. http://coalition4visibleballots.homestead.com/
16. http://www.solarbus.org/...