A Note from the Author: As I worked on my first essay on the robocon scandal I was drawn to look more and more to the possible linkages connecting voter suppression in Canada to election fraud in the United States. Given the history of the Harper Conservatives and the well-documented theft of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections by Republican campaign team of George W. Bush, it did not seem like a major stretch to posit that we are dealing with phenomena that are best understood within continental rather than national frameworks. I was reinforced in this view as I began to look at the treatment being meted out to Ron Paul’s campaign by the establishment of the Republican Party. The thought occurred to me that the same establishment willing to cheat to keep Ron Paul from winning the keys to the White House might share some common ground with the establishment that backed and facilitated Stephen Harper’s rise from prairie populist to Prime Minister of Canada in a remarkable brief period.
Cheating on elections can cut both ways, in this case to install one kind of conservative into high office while keeping another kind of conservative from achieving the rewards of a campaign that has clearly generated a lot of excitement among grass roots activists. What does this contrast tell us about the range of perspectives and strategies that can appropriately be described as conservative? What is the history of different schools of North American conservatism? What are the implications of importing by whatever means the conservatism Republican Party politics into Canada to replace the Tory traditions indigenous to the country that emerged from the conservative side of the American Revolution? The more I thought about these matters the more it seemed useful to combine some reflections on the crisis of conservatism in North America with a report on Canadian and US versions of election fraud mostly emanating from the right wing of the political spectrum. On the advice of the editor I am submitting this essay in multiple parts.
Continentalism and Conservatism
Ron Paul and Stephen Harper are two very different types of conservative. Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas who is currently making his third bid to become president of the United States. Compared with Ron Paul, Stephen Harper is still a relative newcomer on the political stage. Nevertheless within the span of less than a decade Harper went from founding of a new political party to guiding it to form the basis of the Canadian government.
Along the way to power, Harper’s political juggernaut eliminated the old party of indigenous conservatism in Canada replacing it with a clone and a satellite of the Republican Party in the United States. How is it, many have asked, that a political machine developed to extend the Bush-Cheney brand of neo-conservatism is finding traction in Canada even as it has been so thoroughly discredited in the United States. Is the rightward march of government authority the outcome of free, fair and balanced debate within Canada? Does the rightward shift reflect the genuine political will of Canadian citizens? Or have the Harper Conservatives been the beneficiaries of vote rigging tactics together with media manipulations that have emanated especially prolifically from the intersection where the US Republican Party meets the so-called national security apparatus of the United States?
Both Paul and Harper are currently at the eyes of gathering political storms whose effect is to call attention to the importance of election fraud in determining who is allowed access to the levers of government control in North America. As I write, Ron Paul is being blocked from marshaling his broad public support to square off against President Barak Obama as the Republican Party’s nominee in the next presidential election. It appears that Ron Paul is being held back by elements of the same political establishment that helped engineer the last federal election to give Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party an illegitimate and illegal boost.
Much of this cheating in Canada involved initiatives to prevent citizens from voting. This category of election fraud is generally described as voter suppression.[i] Fraudulent telephone communications had as their goal the disenfranchising of many voters by sending targeted groups and individuals to non-existent polling stations. The Conservative Party operatives making these live and automated calls sometimes claimed speciously to be calling on behalf of the nonpartisan federal agency, Elections Canada.[ii] Other fraudulent calls sought to turn recipients against their preferred political party by misrepresenting the source of insulting and harassing telephone messages.
Elections Canada has received over 40,000 contacts mostly expressing concern over allegations of voter suppression. Overlapping complaints have been consolidated by Elections Canada into 800 files covering at least 200 of the 308 electoral ridings throughout Canada. The federal agency, Elections Canada, has opened more than 250 related files as part of its inquiry into “allegations of wrongdoing during the 41st General Election.”[iii] These statistics were brought forward before a multi-party committee of the House of Commons by Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer and the head of the nonpartisan agency, Elections Canada. Mayrand’s presentation to the Committee had been scheduled to coincide with the release of the federal budget, an obvious tactic by the governing party meant to divert media attention away from the information about to be released by Maynard.[iv]
Prior to this current scandal Maynard spent six years working on a case that would eventually see the Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada fined $52,000 in 2011 for overspending and for accounting violations of Canada’s election laws. The controversy arose in the federal election of 2006 in what came to be known as the “In and Out Affair.”[v] According to one observer close to the government, the Harper Conservatives were emboldened to break the law of electioneering in Canada as “the type of thing practiced by their Republican brethren in the United States.”[vi] The Conservatives’ guilty plea came in the context of a plea bargain that saw charges dropped against the top operatives who ordered the illegal transactions.
Bob Rae, a veteran parliamentarian and Interim Leader of the federal Liberal Party of Canada, has expressed the view that Elections Canada is not the appropriate agency to be leading the investigation into what some are calling the robocon scandal. “There’s no accounting for what happens to complaints once they’re made, what the results are.”[vii] Perhaps with recollections of the secrecy surrounding the Conservative Party/Elections Canada plea bargain in the In and Out Affair, Rae added, “It’s not a transparent process and I’m troubled by it.” In early March Rae stood from his seat in the Canadian House of Commons to ask for a Royal Commission into alleged and proven wrongdoing in the course of the last three elections in Canada.[viii]
A group called the Council of Canadians has initiated court challenges alleging wrongdoing in seven ridings where the margin of victory was particularly tight.[ix] So far the star witness has been Annette Desgagne, a whistle blower who was employed during the last federal election at the call centre of the Responsive Marketing Group (RMG) in Thunder Bay Ontario[x]. Since the ingestion of the Progressive Conservative Party by the Harper Conservatives in 2003, RMG has been the primary data collection and data mining partner of the new political entity. This specialty makes RMG one of the possible channels for Conservative interaction with those “Republican brethren” that have made the dark arts of election fraud the primary nemesis of US democracy.
Desgagne has sworn under oath that she alerted Elections Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and her own supervisors at RMG when she realized the scripts that she and her fellow operators were given to read to voters across the country were full of fraudulent information including directions to wrong or non-existent polling stations. The Conservative Party’s lawyer on the case is Arthur Hamilton, a veteran of the In and Out Affair. He and Conservative Party’s spokesperson, Fred DeLorey, denied the veracity of Desgagne’s affidavit. They attempted to sweep aside the court challenge as “a transparent attempt to overturn certified election results simply because the activist group doesn’t like them.”[xi]
As Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer indicated in his presentation before a House of Commons Committee, “any action taken to deliberately misdirect electors and interfere with their right to vote under the Constitution and Elections Act is a serious offence.” He added “It not only denies the fundamental rights of the affected electors, but it diminishes our democratic institution and the rights of all Canadians.”[xii] The Conservative Party majority in the Canadian House of Commons is based on a plurality of less than 7,000 votes spread over 14 electoral ridings. Less than 40% of the overall vote was attributed to the Harper Conservatives in an electoral contest where five parties won seats in the Canadian House of Commons.
Election Fraud and Democracy
Because of the requirement to employ paper ballots the range of options available for cheating in Canadian elections is less than that in the United States, where electronic voting machines have been widely embraced. The embrace of this technology, which is notoriously open to many types of digital hacking and rigging, has taken place mostly under the auspices of the Republican Party which has close historic connections with the developers of the ES&S, Diebold (Premier) and Sequoia Pacific voting systems.[xiii] The Republican Party’s determination to achieve power through election fraud is well chronicled in the documented tactics that twice put George W. Bush in the job of US president in spite of the fact that he got less votes than his chief opponents, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.[xiv]
Moreover, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the deep-state apparatus in the CIA and other so-called national security agencies have played some part in the dramatic transformation of Canada’s political culture over the last decade, including through the swinging of elections.[xv] That decade saw a precipitous decline in the electoral fortunes of the Liberal Party whose historic status as Canada’s governing party presently seems, for the time being at least, to have been preempted by the Harper Conservatives.
An essential marker of this shift occurred in 2003 when Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, refused to commit Canadian troops to participate in the invasion of Iraq. At the same time the then-Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, Stephen Harper, was outspoken in advocating Canada’s full participation in the Anglo-American drive to overthrow militarily the government of Saddam Hussein. With co-author Stockwell Day, Harper affirmed his party’s position in a article in the Wall Street Journal. The authors echoed the rhetoric of George W. Bush in invoking the values of “freedom, democracy, and civilization itself “ as the basis for condemning “the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of September11, 2001.”[xvi]
It does not take a huge leap of imagination to picture how this fundamental dividing of the ways might have prompted some members of President George W. Bush’s neo-conservative Executive branch to extend to Canada some variation of the tactics of clandestine regime change that have been deployed by the CIA in dozens and dozens of countries around the world. The Bush clan, after all, is well known for its deep involvement in the CIA and the type of covert operations in which it specializes.[xvii] While the more extreme methods of regime change extend to political assassinations and even invasions, more subtle forms of manipulation involve rigging elections combined with steering public opinion through engineered media campaigns.[xviii]
Since the documented instances of cheating occur disproportionately on the right wing of politics, this form of fraud poses especially perplexing problems for those who picture themselves as conservative. The questions raised are many. What, for instance, is being conserved when elites exploit their privileges to hire agents that fix the outcome of elections and thereby undermine society’s integrity? What was being conserved in, for instance, 2000 and 2004 when the right-wing forces of George W. Bush stole two federal elections in order to conduct illegal and lethal military adventures abroad, police state repressions at home, and kleptocratic banking practices that increased enormously the entitlements of the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class?
What is being conserved when whole ecosystems are overturned in the name of applying false theories of free market interaction that fail to account for environmental desecration in calculations of profit and lose, credit and debt? What is conservative about socializing many kinds of liability, such as the massive costs of overzealous speculation by bankers, and privatizing profits such as those derived from the publicly-funded bailouts of large financial institutions? What is conservative about deregulating the commercial sphere to such extreme degrees that that corporate executives and their chiefs of creative accounting are rendered free to steal with impunity from shareholders, pension funds, and employees?
Like the banking debacle, the Fukushima debacle, or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill debacle, the rash of revelations about the growing pervasiveness of election fraud is one more illustration that the excesses of deregulation are sapping vitality from some of society’s most important institutions. The corrosion of electoral systems through cheating undermines the wellbeing of all citizens irrespective of ideological or political attachments. In Canada, the United States or anywhere else claiming to be a democracy, the rigging of elections negates the principle that the power of government is founded in the will of the people.
Electoral fraud violates the very purpose of holding elections in the first place. It brings to power governors that do not have the consent of the governed. Elections fraud rewards criminality and penalizes those that adhere to the laws of the land. Even when exposed to the full light of day, as happened with the US presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, election fraud rarely results in dethroning those who took control of government through illegal means. Electoral fraud reinforces the toxic and deeply antisocial conception that good guys finish last.
The trajectory of election fraud that negated the will of the American people in 2000 and 2004 is erupting once again, this time within the internal voting structures of the Republican Party. Evidence continues to mount in, for instance, Iowa, Nevada, Maine, New Hampshire, Georgia, Alaska, Alabama, and South Carolina that systemic forms of cheating are permeating the Republican Party’s state-by-state votes to choose its next presidential candidate.[xix]
Vote rigging is sometimes aided and abetted by the large broadcasting companies who slant and apportion coverage in ways that ignore, downplay, or misrepresent election fraud. This most recent round of vote rigging accompanied by media deception is meant to create and confirm the impression of Ron Paul as a fringe candidate. The reporting of the Republican primary in South Carolina, for instance, declared Newt Gingrich to be the winner with less that 1% of the polls being counted.[xx] This type of collusion to prejudge the outcome of elections before the largest mass of votes have even come in let alone been counted extends the fraud advanced during the presidential election of 2000 when Fox News wrongly declared George Bush to be the winner. This call was not an honest mistake but rather a bid to direct the future flow of history through the purposeful dissemination of disinformation.[xxi]
Born in 1959, Stephen Harper is a career politician who came of age politically in the late 1980s as a student of the so-called Calgary School centred in the political science department at the University of Calgary. Harper was tutored in Calgary by the likes of professors Tom Flanagan and Robert Mansell. The teachers and students of the Calgary School sought to develop a Canadian version of the Reaganomic assault on the Keynesian social welfare state. They sought to shrink the size of government involvement in the fields of health, social security and education even as they advocated military Keynesianism to build up the coercive power of the state.[xxii]
Ron Paul’s politics would have appealed to many of the evangelical Christians and prairie populists who rallied around the Social Credit Party that formed the basis of the provincial government of Alberta from 1935 to 1971. Beginning in 1943 the Alberta government was led by Ernest Manning who continued his predecessor’s radio preaching on behalf of Calgary’s Prophetic Bible Institution. Also a Baptist preacher, Ernest’s son Preston founded the Reform Party of Canada in 1987 attracting the involvement of a young Stephen Harper. With the help and advice of the Calgary School’s Tom Flanagan, Harper eventually pushed Manning and his successor aside to take control of the entity that ingested the Progressive Conservative Party in 2003.
Harper and Flanagan made it their mission to import into Canada a distilled version of the style of conservatism developed by Barry Goldwater and brought to presidential fruition by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Harper embraced the renewal of US expansionism as politically facilitated by the strange marriage of the most extreme branches of evangelical Christianity with the more radical forms of Zionism animating the right-wing policies of Israel’s Likud Party. Increasingly Harper modeled his quest for power on the neo-conservatism of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the so-called Vulcans in the Bush war cabinet.[xxiii]
In the federal votes of 2000 and 2004 the operatives of the two-term Bush-Cheney presidency took electoral fraud to new levels of audacity. Nothing, not even the constraints of law nor the realities of voter preference, was allowed to stand in the way of the most aggressive branch of the war party. In integrating himself and his supporters yet more deeply into the US war party, that has as its main international extension in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Harper sought to advance the interests in Canada of the same complex of North American financial elites that had formed the Republican Party’s neo-conservative base.
The Canadian prime minister almost never utters a word of criticism of the class that dominates the stock exchanges on Bay Street in Toronto or on Wall Street in New York. Moreover, Harper has given high priority to integrating the Canadian Armed Forces ever more deeply into the dominant military apparatus of North America. Indeed, Harper has made himself an unabashed advocate, promoter and apologist for the aggressions of the world’s most formidable and violent military juggernaut. By courting power in these ways, Prime Minister Harper’s Conservative Party was rewarded with a majority of seats in the Canadian House of Commons in the federal election of 2011. The results of that election, however, are contested.
Mr. Paul Goes to Washington, Mr. Harper Goes to Ottawa
Stephen Harper is no Ron Paul. Canada’s current prime minister is 24 years younger than Ron Paul. There is much more than age, however, dividing Ron Paul’s politics from the politics of Stephen Harper. As the crisis in conservatism deepens, the divide between Harper and Paul acquires added meaning. This rift helps expose the stark outlines of the tectonic shifts that are changing the landscape of North America’s political economy. The differing conservative visions driving the politics of Ron Paul and Stephen Harper help to clarify the changing geography of leadership and dissent, truth seeking and fraud in this era of growing polarization between haves and have nots.
During the course of the state-by-state primaries in the Republican Party, Ron Paul seemed to be well ahead of the rest of the field in the contest for hearts and minds even as he is officially lost ballot count after ballot count.[xxiv] The evidence is overwhelming that outright cheating is a significant factor in the disparity between performance and outcomes. By denying the just reward of electoral success to Paul and his supporters, the Republican Party establishment is significantly upping the ante in a time of growing impatience and even outrage with the dishonest conceits of entrenched privilege.
For good or for bad, a more modest replica of the kind of frenzied excitement generated by Barrack Obama’s campaign in 2008 is developing in and around the Ron Paul camp in 2012. The social networking depicting the large crowds of college students attracted by Ron Paul’s campaign together with the impressive Washington rally on February 20 of veterans and serving soldiers supporting his candidacy signals the kind of unorthodox coalition that the maverick libertarian has been assembling.[xxv] So too does the absence of these evocative images in most mainstream reports of the Republican Party primaries indicate the severity of the establishment’s blackout. The affect of this censorship is to deny many citizens, regardless of their political affiliations, the information they need to help assess the significance of Ron Paul’s campaign, but especially its anti-war message.
The impressive display of grass roots mobilization energizing Ron Paul’s campaign is being denied its just desserts in order hand a tarnished and illegitimate mandate to Mitt Romney. Such corruption is fast reducing the United States in the eyes of many in the global community to the status of the banana republics that the CIA and US military have propped up, often with horrific brutality. Given Mitt Romney’s history as one of Wall Street’s quintessential kleptocrats, this blatant election fraud within the Republican Party exposes the preeminence of vulture capitalism in maintaining America’s predatory place in the world. Romney’s pyrrhic victory illustrates graphically the role of concentrated wealth, no matter how dubiously obtained, in determining who belongs where in pyramidal structures of command and control.
The straight talking Ron Paul provides a very effective counterpoint to Mitt Romney and Stephen Harper, two political opportunists prone to hide the shady dealings of the class they serve behind the ornamented façade of conservative party brands. Ron Paul has sometimes been compared to Jefferson Smith, the hero of the 1939 classic, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Mr. Jefferson Smith is the incorruptible character whose earnest portrayal by Jimmy Stewart thrust the actor into Hollywood stardom. Like Jefferson Smith, Ron Paul is an idealistic outsider whose vision of change menaces many entrenched interests. Unlike Jefferson Smith, Ron Paul is no newcomer to the Washington scene.
Born four years before the release of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the veteran of political combat in the US Congress conveys both the gravitas and star power of a mature Jimmy Stewart. But Ron Paul and his millions of supporters are playing out for real a drama where the life-and-death stakes are enormous. Members of the Republican Party establishment have conspired against Ron Paul so aggressively that they have rendered their nemesis as a real life embodiment of the underdog hero that is featured so often as the lead character in scores of Hollywood dramas.
Ronald Earnest Paul has been an unrelenting opponent of the public powers invested in the private proprietors of the secretive and unaccountable US Federal Reserve. He deplores the system of fiat currency that compounds the weight of debt at an even faster rate than the accelerating inflation of the money supply. As Ron Paul sees it, this fast-increasing indebtedness goes primarily to fund the madness of a parasitical American imperium with warring strategies and operations all over the world. Since 1997 Ron Paul has given Republican representation to his constituents in 14th Congressional District of Texas. He first entered politics in 1971, winning a Congressional seat in 1976 and again in 1985. As an obstetrician-gynecologist, Dr. Paul has helped more than 4,000 mothers give birth to their children. He served on the medical staff of the US Air Force.
Ron Paul’s first bid for the presidency was in 1988 when he ran as the candidate for the Libertarian Party. In 2008 Paul sought to become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. There is a long list of libertarian causes accompanying his attacks on the transgressions of bankers and the war mongering of America’s dominant elites. Paul lines up, for instance, with the friends of minimalist government, low taxation, expansive property rights, and the legalization of marijuana. He sides with the opponents of abortion, gun control and the social welfare state.[xxvi]
For consistently opposing abuses of power in the realm of banking and military invasions, Ron Paul has garnered the reserved respect and appreciation of many on the left who agree with his anti-imperialism and well as some aspects of his diagnosis of the financial debacle. But for those who believe in the importance of the state as an instrument to promote and safeguard the collective wellbeing of the whole society, but especially its most disadvantaged members, this marriage of political convenience can only be stretched so far.
Ron Paul’s particular form of conservatism denies group rights by putting all the emphasis on individual liberties. This propensity shows up most clearly when it comes to Ron Pau’s role as an inspirational figure in the genesis of the Tea Party movement.[xxvii] The Tea Party movement began independently of the Republican Party. The most recent cycle employing the imagery of Anglo-America’s most seminal tax revolt originated in 2006 in an event entitled the Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth.[xxviii] A former director of the US Star Wars program, Lt.-Colonel Robert Bowman was prominent among those who organized a ritual throwing overboard into Boston Harbor of the inadequate and deeply flawed report of the 9/11 Commission. The aim of this display of contempt for the government’s spurious 9/11 cover story was to dramatize the need for American patriots to reject the frauds imposed from above by dishonest, illegitimate, and unaccountable authorities.
What began as a genuine populist effort to criticize America’s ruling cabal was in due course co-opted by the some of the elites the tea partiers sought initially to expose, discredit, and displace. The notorious Koch brothers used the carrot of funding to help divert the movement away from its founding principles. Similarly, the extensive coverage of the Tea Party by the psy ops specialists at Fox News helped transform the spectacle into a cartoon-like caricature affording major publicity to extremists who disregarded the founding critique of the organizers of the Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth.
[i] Spencer Overton, Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006)
[ii] Tonda MacCharles, “Conservative Scripts Misdirected Voters in 2011 Election, Say Call Centre Staff,” The Toronto Star, 27 February, 2012 at
[iii] Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor, “Fraudulent Robocalls Absolutely Outragious: Chief Electoral Officer,” The Montreal Gazette, 30 March, 2012 at
[iv]Meagan Fitzpatrick, “Elections Canada Probing Call Complaints in 200 Ridings,” 29 March, 2012 at
Kady O’Malley, “Committee Recap: Elections Canada Looking into 800 complaints Covering 2000 Ridings: Chief Electoral Officer,” CBC News Inside Politics Blog, 29 March, 2012 at
[v] Steven Chase, Tory Senators Face Elections Charges Over Campaign Spending,” The Globe and Mail, 25 February, 2011 at
Laura Payton, “Conservative Party Fined Over Breaking Election Laws,” CBC News, 10 November, 2011, at
[vi] Duff Conacher cited in Lawrence Martin, Harperland: The Politics of Control (Toronto: Penguin, 2011), 32
[vii] Rae cited CBC News, “Is Elections Canada the Right Agency to Investigate Robocalls,” 2 March, 2012 at
[viii] See Hall, “Canada, Fixing Elections Through Fraud” On the Need for a Royal Commission on Electoral Practices in Canada,” Global Research.ca, 21 April, 2012 at
[ix] Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor, “Robocall Ridings Face Legal Challenge to Overturn Federal Election Result, The National Post, 27 March, 2012 at
[x] Allan Woods, “Robocalls: Conservative Party’s Firm Directed Voters to wrong Polling Stations, Says Former Employee, Toronto Star, 18 April, 2012 at
Affidavit of Annette Desgagne, sworn April 13, 2012, Court File No. T-63312 in the case of Ken Ferance and Peggy Walssh Craig versus Attornet General of Canada, Marc Mayrand et al. at
[xi] Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher, Tories, Call-Bank Company Reject Affidavit Alleging Voter Misdirection, Ottawa Citizen, 18 April, 2012 at
[xii] Mayrand cited by Meagan Fitzpatrick, “Elections Canada Probing Call Complaints in 200 Ridings,” 29 March, 2012 at
[xiii] Bev Harris with David Allen, Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the Twenty-First Century ( Renton Washington: Talion, 2004)
[xiv] Mark Crispin Miller, Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform. Second Edition (New York: Basic Books, 2007), Miller ed., Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008 (Brooklyn N.Y.: Ig Publishing, 2008)
On the 2000 election see
Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Expanded Edition (New York: Plume, 2004); Howard Gilman, The Votes That Count: How the Courts Decided the 2000 Presidential Election (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Bruce Ackerman, ed., Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002)
On the 2004 election see
Robert Fritakis, Steven Rosenfeld, and Harvey Wsserman, What Happened in Ohio? A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election (New York: New Press, 2006); Robert F. Kennedy “Was the 2004 Election Stoen? How 350,000 Votes Disappeared in Ohio,” Rolling Stone, June, 2004; Michael Keefer, “Evidence of Fraud in 2004 U.S. Presidential Election: A Reader,” Global Research .ca, 5 December, 2004 at
[xv] Bob Fritakis, “Demonstration Democracy: The Voting Machine Industrial Complex,” Counterpunch, 8 September, 2003 at
Wayne Madsen, Ohio ’04 Election Was Not Challenged to Protect CIA Election Rigging Technology, Intrepid Report, 12 March, 2012 at
[xvi] Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day, “Canadians Stand with You,” The Wall Street Journal. 28 March, 2003 at
[xvii] Kevin Phillips, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (New York: Viking, 2004)
[xviii] William Blum, Killing Hope: Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (Monroe Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995); Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2006)
Misreporting on Elections
[xxi]David W. Moore, How to Steal an Election: The Inside Story of How George Bush’s Brother and FOX News Miscalled the 2000 Election and Changed the Course of History (New York: Nation Press, 2006)
[xxii] Marci McDonald, “The Man Behind Stephen Harper,” Walrus, October, 2004 at
[xxiii] James Mann, The Rise of the Vulcans: The Bush War Cabinet (New York: Viking, 2004)
[xxvi] Christopher Horner and Karen Kwiatowski, Ron Paul: A Life of Ideas (Winnipeg: Variant Press, 2008)
[xxvii] Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williams, The Tea Party and the Remaking of the Republican Conservatives (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)