Google voter fraud 2000, voter fraud 2004 and

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-campaign-launches-voter-fraud-web.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyn-l...-c_b_11483.html

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman October 26, 2005

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as conspiracy theories adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received more than 57,000 complaints following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines. The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected. In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate. Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level. 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a widespread conspiracy but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

Frankly I do not see much good coming from the policies of the last 8 years. An out of sight deficit, home foreclosures, terrible price hikes and job losses, I can;t see the pluses in these. Has Iraq made us safer? My gut tells me no. If there had, in fact been weapons of mass destruction than I would feel differently. I think what has matterd the most protecting the US have been more careful survellience domestically in the form of airline survelliences and the like.

I think Obama has the potential to make some positive changes, domestically and worldwide as well. While there is no guarantee of that I really don't feel that McCain will do to much except to continue more or less to promote the same policies as in the last eight years. We can do better than that. The post 9/11 politics of fear are eating the country alive economically. While there is never a guarantee that another terrorist attack will not occur, as they do every so often world-wide, I think it is foolish to sink your economy and play on the fears of its people on the remote chance that another one 'might occur someday.'

I like the message of hope and change that Obama speaks of, and if elected I hope that he is able to achieve some of his goals.

just one of many many many and the sheep who won't open their eyes to the mess the repubs have made will never learn

CNN just reported in Raleigh, NC-- people standing in line for 2 hours, and opps, all the sudden there are no ballots....there they are.....they are wet and will not go through the machine, so just put those to the side and we'll run them later.

There seems to be a HUGE list of this kind of stuff. And who benefits from a lower voter turnout? Hmmm.

First, let me say this testimony by a Cal State professor of economics pertaining to the proposed "cap-and-trade" program isn't light reading, but it isn't very long or overly technical, either. It's only a little over 3 pages, double-spaced with generous margins, and takes less than 10 minutes to read, especially since the whole first page is taken up with the economist's credentials and background which you can skip if you wish.

Second, we have to bring a certain mental framework to things like this, which I compare to digging the meat out of a walnut shell. People like this don't typically use the kind of sensational language that we're accustomed to hearing on the news, and they tend to be rather polite and very low-key in the way they say things, especially when they're addressing a Congressional committee.

So nothing here is "bolded" or "underlined" in the way it's expressed, and ordinary reader like ourselves can easily miss the significance of what this economist is trying to tell the committee, which - if you want to cut right to the chase - is that "cap-and-trade" will destroy our economy. Now, the economist uses somewhat less drastic terms but only SLIGHTLY less so, and if you simply think about the consequences of his predictions (which he expects the committee members to do), his meaning is quite clear.

Cap-and-trade is admittedly INTENDED to make energy costs higher, on the theory that higher prices will induce reductions in energy use, hence pollution, etc., etc. While this might sound like a good theory (odd, though, that those who support it are the very same people who laugh at "trickle-down" economics, which is exactly what this is, in reverse), it actually hides new taxes that consumers will ultimately pay for either directly or in the form of higher prices for literally everything because every good and every service includes an energy cost of one sort or another (and that, in turn, will also mean another layer of increased tax because you pay a higher sales tax when the price of anything goes up - a double whammy, in other words). At 8%, something that costs you $10 today = $10.80. If the price goes up to $15, you pay $16.20 - which is not only a 50% increase in the price, but also a 50% tax increase on that item. (It's critical to learn to think in percentages, and also to learn how prices are related to taxes!)

Cap-and-trade may just be the most horrendous idea ever to come down the pike. This economist thinks so, calling it the "most anti-consumer" idea proposed to any Congress in our history. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any political party. It's simply another example of the absolute madness that seems to grip Washington these days - and members of both parties are afflicted with this insanity.

So, as always, here's the link for those who wish to paste it into their browsers, and it's also in the clickable link below. This is a PDF file and I can assure you that there's no virus risk.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/robert-michaels-testimony-april-23-2009.pdf

Please don't think I am accusing everyone who gets public assistance of this. Many people who get the assistance really need it, and I have a friend who is an example.

But there is also a subculture involved here. People can qualify for food stamps who have undocumented income, under-the-table earnings, and even money from criminal activity. They don't actually need the food stamps to eat, but they get them.

Back when food stamps were actual coupons, there used to be a thriving black market in buying and selling food stamps for a percentage of their cash value. Then the money could be used for tobacco, alcohol, drugs and other things. Maybe the new debit card system put a stop to this, maybe not. The money goes into your account every month. All it would take is lending your card and sharing your PIN number with someone. My friend has never been asked for ID.

And if the object of this assistance is to feed (and I think by that we mean nourish) people, is it right for parents to stuff their kids full of twinkies, chips and Pepsi with the food stamp money? What the kids need is nourishment, not junk. What we end up with is another poorly nourished, hyperactive generation that cannot concentrate and learn in school, then cannot hold down an adequate job, and the cycle repeats itself.

In the county where I live, if you are on public health assistance and get pregnant you have to comply with a whole host of requirements. Parenting classes, classes on prenatal nutrition, classes on how to take care of an infant, regular checkups, drug tests, classes on contraception, etc. You should consider this a job. We are paying you to have a healthy baby, and these are your duties. Women scream about this being degrading, and an invasion of their privacy.

But honestly, if you accept the assistance, why would you assume there should be no strings? Why would you assume you don't have to jump through some hoops to get it? Do you expect to be left alone until the day of delivery, get a free stay in the hospital, and go your merry way? Can't we assume that since this is your second illegetimate pregnancy, you don't really know what's causing it? Or you forgot and need to repeat the class?

These types of assistance are supposed to be an investment society makes in improving the situation. Used properly, they can be. But often they are considered just another entitlement. *Just gimme the money and get outta my face.*

I'm just a working stiff who relies on the government for certain things, one of which is to preserve my right to vote and for my vote be counted. It's just wrong that Democratic delegates will not be seated in the state of Florida (for whatever reason). It's obvious there needs to be some major reconstruction somewhere... gosh... where to start... Very, very upset about this.