IRANIAN VOTER OR ELECTION FRAUD? HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL, U.S., INDEPENDENT POLLSTERS SAY OTHERWISE
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won reelection as the president of Iran. Ahmadinejad reportedly received around 62 percent of the vote. I'm not surprised.
Western media is emphasizing that his opponent has made the claim that the numbers are more than suspicious. It sounds to me that the Western, mainstream, corporate, imperial media is doing much the same here as it did when Hugo Chavez won by large numbers. Of course, we remember the attempted coup against Chavez that was orchestrated from Washington and by the CIA. We also are well aware that many TV stations and newspapers are still owned by rabid capitalists in Venezuela despite their claims that Hugo is a dictator on the order of Joseph Stalin or something, not that I hold with all things Hugo Chavez. I don't. He isn't what the CIA propaganda machine claims he is though. No anti-imperial leaders are, or ever have been, much the way they've been painted by the CIA propagandists.
According to officials responsible for receiving election complaints in Iran, no complaints have been formally lodged. It is early though although I would be surprised if there is solid evidence of fraud. What would be interesting to see are the results of before and after polling (exit polls) by independent pollsters if such exist. (See: "Iran rejects claims of voter fraud." Press TV. June 13, 2009.)
Ah, right when I was coming back to this draft, I ran into a poll:
This is not an exit poll, but it is an independent, highly professional poll done before the election.
If you think this outfit that did the polling is some far-left or Muslim organization, think again:
- Lee H. Hamilton (Lee Hamilton)
- John McCain
- William H. Frist (Bill Frist)
- Charles S. Robb (Chuck Robb)
- Thomas H. Kean (Tom Kean)
The man heading this up, Kenneth Ballen, is not what anyone, anywhere, could call fringe. He's mainstream all the way. Of course, he and I are not going to agree about everything right now; however, I am not going to take credit away from him for having done this polling where to me he exudes sincerity. He may (he will) catch heat over being too ethical here. I hope he doesn't cave. I hope the "ADVISORY BOARD" backs him for telling the truth about the Iranian election. If they don't, they and not he should and will go down.
There have been reports of riots in Tehran. How much money, drugs, false promises, and disinformation did the CIA pump into Tehran?
In the U.S., which shouldn't be pointing the anti-democratic finger at anyone, what interest has there been in correcting U.S. election fraud by Diebold, a private, Republican company whose founder said he would guarantee a Republican win?
The fact that 1) electronic voting-machines were not developed under the watchful eyes of a number of different political parties and by government employees and not private contractors and 2) nothing has ever been done about the stolen elections would be astounding if I believed in America. I do not.
In Iran, they have an audit trail. They are still using paper ballots. I hope the major parties there share open responsibility for protecting ballots throughout the entire election process and for counting results, etc.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)